78514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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-togovernment consultation with Tribes, 

we met with the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe regarding the process we would 

take to conduct a 12-month status 

review of Astragalus schmolliae. As an 

outcome of our government-togovernment consultation, we recognize 

the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribe to manage the habitat for A. 

schmolliae on its tribal lands, and 

acknowledge that right in this 12-month 

finding. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Federal action for Astragalus 

microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae 

(then A. schmollae) began as a result of 

section 12 of the Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 

directed the Secretary of the 

Smithsonian Institution to prepare a 

report on plants considered to be 

endangered, threatened, or extinct in the 

United States. This report, designated as 

House Document No. 94–51, was 

presented to Congress on January 9, 

1975. In that document, both species 

were designated as endangered (House 

Document 94–51, pp. 57–58). On July 1, 

1975, the Service published a notice in 

the Federal Register (40 FR 27823, p. 

27847) of its acceptance of the 

Smithsonian report as a petition within 

the context of section 4(c)(2) (now 

section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and giving 

notice of its intention to review the 

status of the plant taxa therein. 

As a result of that review, the Service 

published a proposed rule on June 16, 

1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR 

24523, pp. 24543–24544) to determine 

endangered status pursuant to section 4 

of the Act for approximately 1,700 

vascular plant taxa, including 

Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus 

schmolliae. The list of 1,700 plant taxa 

was assembled on the basis of 

comments and data received by the 

Smithsonian Institution, and the Service 

in response to House Document No. 94– 

51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal 

Register publication. General comments 

received in response to the 1976 

proposal are summarized in an April 26, 

1978, Federal Register publication (43 

FR 17909). In 1978, amendments to the 

Act required that all proposals more 

than 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year 

grace period was given to proposals 

already more than 2 years old. On 

December 10, 1979, the Service 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the 

portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal 

that had not been made final which 

removed both A. microcymbus and A. 

schmolliae from proposed status but 

retained both species as candidate plant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 offroad vehicle use and drought; and that 

listing Astragalus schmolliae may be 

warranted based on threats from fire, 

nonnative species invasions, road 

construction, grazing, and drought; and 

went on to request further information 

from the public pertaining to both 

species (74 FR 41649, pp. 41655– 

41656). 

This notice constitutes the 12-month 

finding on the July 24, 2007, petition to 

list Astragalus microcymbus and 

Astragalus schmolliae as threatened or 

endangered. Given that we are doing 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.)), pealike, are found at the end of branches in 

clusters of 7–14 flowers, and have white 

petals that are tinged with purple. Fruits 

are boat-shaped (hence the common 

name ‘‘skiff’’ and the Latin name 

microcymbus meaning ‘‘small boat’’), 

grow to less than 1 cm (0.4 in.), are 

triangular in cross-section, and hang 

abruptly downward from the branches. 

These characteristics, particularly the 

plant’s diffuse branching, small whitepurple pea-like flowers, and boat-like 

fruit pods distinguish this species from 

other Astragalus species in the area 

(description adapted from Peterson et 

al. 1981, pp. 5–7; Heil and Porter 1990, 

pp. 5–6; Isley 1998, p. 349). 

Astragalus microcymbus was 

discovered in 1945 by Rupert Barneby 

roughly 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) 

west of Gunnison, Colorado (Barneby 

1949, pp. 499–500). The species was not 

located again until 1955 by the Colorado 

botanical expert William Weber, who 

originally considered it to be nonnative 

because of its dissimilarity to the other 

numerous Astragalus species in the 

region (Barneby 1964, p. 193). Both of 

these early collections were from 

alongside Highway 50 near Gunnison, 

Colorado, at a location that has likely 

been destroyed. The plant was not 

located in its more intact and native 

habitat along South Beaver Creek until 

Joseph Barrell rediscovered the species 

in 1966 (Barrell 1969, p. 284; Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 

2010a, p. 14). 

The Astragalus genus is large, with 

over 1,500 species that are found on all 

continents except Antarctica and 

Australia, and with almost 600 species 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

in the United States, primarily in the 

West (Isley 1998, p. 149). The genus is 

divided into many sections. A. 

microcymbus is not similar in 

appearance to other Astragalus species 

in the region. Its presumed closest 

relative (from the Strigulosi section of 

Astragalus) is found in New Mexico, 

with other relatives extending 

southward, and being found mostly in 

Mexico (Barneby 1964, p. 193; Isley 

1998, pp. 349–350). The taxonomic 

status of A. microcymbus has not been 

disputed, although the monophyly (all 

members descended from a single 

common ancestor) of the Strigulosi 

section, and the placement of A. 

microcymbus within the section has 

been debated (Spellenberg 1974, pp. 

394–395; Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 12– 

13). For the purposes of this finding, we 

consider A. microcymbus to represent a 

valid species and, therefore, a listable 

entity. 

Biology and Life History 

Astragalus microcymbus individuals 

live on average 2.2–3 years (with a range 

of 1–14 years). Most frequently, plants 

are alive for only 1 year (DePrengerLevin 2010a, pers. comm.). The plant 

flowers from mid to late May into July 

(Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18; Japuntich 

2010a, pers. comm.). There are more 

flowering plants in early June than at 

any other time, and flowering then 

drops off or stops, with a second bloom 

occurring in July (Japuntich 2010a, pers. 

comm.). The earlier flowering plants are 

reportedly larger and more vine-like, 

and later flowering plants are much 

smaller sized and less vine-like 

(Japuntich 2010a, pers. comm.). 

Little is known of how Astragalus 

microcymbus reproduces. For example, 

we do not know if the plant requires 

pollinators, or what pollinators are 

important for reproduction. A single 

plant that was caged in 1980 did not 

produce fruit (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 

18). Although this was suggested as 

evidence that the plant may require 

pollinators, we believe that this 

speculation is premature, because the 

study was completed for only one 

individual. Studies of other Astragalus 

species have found some species to be 

totally reliant on pollinators, and others 

to be somewhat self-compatible (able to 

produce seed without pollen from a 

different plant) but still relying on 

pollinators to some degree (Karron 1989, 

p. 337; Kaye 1999, p. 1254). Astragalus 

species with limited ranges are 

somewhat more self-compatible than 

wider ranging relatives (Karron 1989, p. 

337). 

Several pollinators have been 

observed visiting Astragalus 

microcymbus, suggesting that 

pollinators may be important for 

reproduction, but little is known about 

what pollinators these are (with the 

exception of the two listed below) and 

which are most important. Two insects 

that regularly visit the flowers of A. 

microcymbus were collected in 1989 

(Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18–19). One 

visitor was a small, black carpenter bee, 

Ceratina nanula that was collected from 

3 sites (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18– 

19), and is known from at least 11 

western States (Discover Life 2009, p. 1). 

The other visitor was a small, yellow 

and brown satyr butterfly, 

Coenonympha ochracea ssp. ochracea, a 

species of the Rocky Mountains (Heil 

and Porter 1990, p. 19). We expect there 

are more pollinators than these two 

species, based on the limited number of 

observations and collections to date 

(Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 6, 18–19; 

Sherwood 1994, p. 12), and because 

other Astragalus species are visited by 

many different pollinator species 

(Karron 1989, p. 322; Kaye 1999, pp. 

1251–1252; Sugden 1985, p. 303). 

Fruits of Astragalus microcymbus 

have been observed as early as late-May, 

are always present by mid-June, with 

peak fruiting occurring in mid-July, and 

all fruits falling off the plants by lateAugust (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18). 

Fruit production varies greatly. For 

example, during a life-history study 

(discussed in further detail in 

Distribution and Abundance below), no 

fruits were counted in 2002, and 33,819 

fruits were counted in 2008 (Denver 

Botanic Gardens [DBG] 2010a, p. 5). In 

the same 14-year life history study 

(1995–2009), fruit production was high 

in only 3 years: 1995, 1997, and 2008 

(DBG 2010a, p. 5). This type of 

synchronous seeding is sometimes 

referred to as mast seeding or mast 

years. Mast seedings may be a strategy 

to release enough seeds to feed seed 

predators, that are kept at lower 

numbers in years with little or no seed 

production, and still allow other seeds 

to germinate. Alternatively, it may be a 

product of increased pollination success 

(Crone and Lesica 2004, p. 1945). We 

are unsure of the conditions that lead to 

good seed and fruit set; overall annual 

precipitation does not explain the 

variability (DBG 2010a, p. 12). 

Seed dispersal mechanisms have not 

been researched, but wind and rain are 

considered candidates (Heil and Porter 

1990, p. 19). Seed dormancy, seed 

survival, and seed longevity in the soil 

are unknown. We do not know if 

specific cues (e.g., temperature, 

precipitation, or seed coat alterations) 

are needed to break seed dormancy. 

Seed bank studies for other Astragalus 

species indicate that the group generally 

possesses hard impermeable seed coats 

with a strong physical germination 

barrier. As a result, the seeds are 

generally long-lived in the soil, and only 

a small percentage of seeds germinate 

each year (summarized in Morris et al. 

2002, p. 30). Conversely, the DBG 

looked at soil cores taken from A. 

microcymbus monitoring sites and 

found only one seed. The authors 

concluded that A. microcymbus does 

not have an active seed bank (DBG 

2010a, p. 6). More research is needed to 

better understand the seed bank’s role in 

the life history of the species. 

Astragalus microcymbus individuals 

may exhibit prolonged dormancy 

(remaining underground throughout a 

growing season). This trait may help a 

species better cope with drought or 

resource-limiting conditions (Lesica and 

Steele 1994, pp. 209–210). Between 6 

and 90 percent of A. microcymbus 

individuals are dormant in a given year 

(DBG 2008, pp. 6, 13, 18). Dormancy 

varies significantly from year to year 

and between plots (DBG 2010a, p. 15). 

Of the individuals that exhibited 

prolonged dormancy, 54 percent 

remained dormant for 1 year, 10 percent 

were dormant for 2 years, with a 

decreasing percentage of individuals 

remaining dormant for each 

successively longer time period to 11 

years (DBG 2008, p. 6). These numbers 

for prolonged dormancy are not 

definitive because researchers are 

unable to say with certainty if a plant 

returning to a spot where an individual 

was previously found is a new 

individual or an individual returning 

from prolonged dormancy (DePrengerLevin 2010a, pers. comm.). 

Distribution and Abundance 

We use several terms to discuss 

various sizes or groupings of Astragalus 

microcymbus individuals: Element 

Occurrence, site, polygon, point, and 

units. We consider the term Element 

Occurrence synonymous with 

population and it is further defined 

below. Within a population, various 

smaller ‘‘sites’’ have been hand drawn 

on maps between 1955 and 1994, and 

counted or tracked by site. To 

distinguish these older sites from more 

recent Global Positioning System (GPS) 

mapping efforts, we have used the term 

‘‘polygon’’ (circles around clusters of 

individuals) or ‘‘point’’ (points 

representing one or a few plants within 

the immediate area) to describe data that 

was collected after 2003 with a GPS 

unit. Finally, we have taken the 

polygons and points and created ‘‘units’’ 

on which to conduct our spatial 

analyses for this 12-month finding. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15DE10.010</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78519 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS POPULATIONS (ELEMENT OCCURRENCES) (USFWS 2010a, PP. 1–4) 

Population name Population No. Number of sites 

(pre-2004) 

Estimated number 

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). 

Unit name Population No. Est. number of 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS UNITS FOR OUR SPATIAL ANALYSIS IN THIS 12-MONTH FINDING (USFWS 2010a, 

PP. 1–4; 2010b, PP. 1–3).—Continued 

Unit name Population No. Est. number of individuals Acres Hectares Ownership 

South Beaver Creek 1 .................. 2 ............................ 6,136 ..................... 918.5 ..................... 371.7 ..................... 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 aboveground 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78521 

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 aboveground growth (DBG 2010a, p. 6). 

Survey efforts, trend monitoring, lifehistory monitoring, and the 

corresponding population viability 

analysis all suggest that Astragalus 

microcymbus numbers are declining. In 

both of the more rigorous monitoring 

efforts, the decline seems to be 

correlated with precipitation. The 

drought in the early 2000s caused a 

huge decline in numbers, with a 

rebound in the later 2000s (DBG 2010a, 

p. 5). However, the very low survey 

numbers from this decade as compared 

to the 1980s and 1990s seem less 

correlated with precipitation (USFWS 

2010a, pp. 1–4; WRCC 2010a, pp. 1–8). 

The reasons for these declines are not 

fully understood. 

Habitat 

Astragalus microcymbus is found in 

the sagebrush steppe ecosystem at 

elevations of 2,377–2,597 meters (m) 

(7,800–8,520 feet (ft)). The plant is most 

commonly found on rocky or cobbly, 

moderate to steep (9–38 degrees) slopes 

of hills and draws (Heil and Porter 1990, 

p. 16), although there are some sites that 

are flat. Plants are generally found on 

southeast to southwest aspects, but are 

occasionally found on northern 

exposures (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). 

The average annual precipitation is 

around 25 cm (10 in.) a year, and is 

fairly consistently spread across the 

year, except for July and August when 

roughly twice the precipitation falls 

compared to the other months (WRCC 

2010b, pp. 3, 8). Snow falls in the 

winter and remains on the ground from 

November/December through March/ 

April (WRCC 2010a, pp. 3, 8). Winters 

are cold with an average daily high in 

January of -3 °C (26.5 °F) and an average 

daily low of -20 °C (-4.0 °F). Summers 

are warmer. July is the hottest month 

with an average daily high of 27 °C (81 

°F) and an average daily low of 6 °C (44 

°F) (WRCC 2010b, pp. 3–8). 

Astragalus microcymbus is found in 

open park-like landscapes dominated by 

several sagebrush species, cacti, sparse 

grasses, and other scattered shrubs. 

Shrubs are primarily represented by 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

(mountain big sagebrush), Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming 

sagebrush), Artemisia frigida (fringed 

sagebrush or prairie sagewort), and 

Artemisia nova (black sagebrush); cacti 

include Yucca harrimaniae (Spanish 

bayonet), and Opuntia polyacantha 

(plains pricklypear); grasses most 

commonly include Achnatherum 

hymenoides (formerly Oryzopsis 

hymenoides—Indian ricegrass), Elymus 

elymoides (formerly Sitanion hystrix— 

squirreltail), Hesperostipa comata 

(formerly Stipa comata—needle and 

thread grass), and Poa sp. (fescue); and 

the most common forbs include 

Cryptantha cinerea (James’ Cryptantha) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15DE10.011</MATH>
78522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and Penstemon teucrioides (germander 

beardtongue). Other shrubs and small 

trees found within A. microcymbus’ 

habitat include Ribes cereum (wax 

currant), Symphoricarpos oreophilus 

(mountain snowberry), and Juniperus 

scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper). 

Soils are well drained and vary from 

sandy to rocky, but are primarily a thin 

cobble-clay loam (Heil and Porter 1990, 

p. 13). The primary soils within 

Astragalus microcymbus units are stony 

rock land (46 percent), Lucky-Cheadle 

gravelly sandy loams with 5–45 percent 

slopes (39 percent), alluvial land (8 

percent), and Kezar-Cathedral gravelly 

sandy loams with 5–35 percent slopes (4 

percent) (Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) 2008; USFWS 2010b, 

pp. 12–13). Geologically, A. 

microcymbus is associated with: (1) 

Felsic and hornblendic gneiss 

(metamorphic from igneous) substrates; 

(2) granitic (igneous) rocks of 1,700 

million-year age group; and (3) biotitic 

gneiss, schist, and migmatite 

(sedimentary) substrates with 52, 37, 

and 11 percent, respectively, in each 

geology (Knepper et al. 1999, pp. 21–22; 

USFWS 2010b, pp. 10–11). 

The areas where Astragalus 

microcymbus is found are generally 

distinct from surrounding habitats. They 

are more sparsely vegetated, drier than 

surrounding areas, more heavily 

occupied by cacti, and appear to have 

some specific soil properties as 

described above. This habitat is limited 

and patchily distributed on the 

landscape. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

occurring adjacent to or within 

Astragalus microcymbus sites (USFWS 

2010, pers. comm.). 

The BLM’s Hartman Rocks Recreation 

Management Plan closed two trails and 

rerouted one trail to protect Astragalus 

microcymbus (BLM 2005a, p. 18; 

Japuntich 2010c, pers. comm.). These 

closures were for trails that were 

directly impacting A. microcymbus 

individuals. The Aberdeen Loop trail 

goes very close to several A. 

microcymbus sites within the South 

Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, 

and South Beaver Creek 6 Units. To 

protect Gunnison sage-grouse broodrearing habitat, a reroute of this trail is 

planned in the next few years that will 

put the trail further from these A. 

microcymbus sites (Japuntich 2010d, 

pers. comm.). Many trails are open yearround in the Hartman Rocks Recreation 

Area, but with less use in the winter and 

early spring when trails are snow 

covered or muddy. Closures during A. 

microcymbus’ growing season (likely 

late April through August) would 

benefit the species by reducing impacts 

to seedlings and plants, and by 

lessening disruptions to pollinators. The 

Aberdeen Loop trail that runs through 

the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver 

Creek 5, and South Beaver Creek 6 

occupied A. microcymbus habitat is 

subject to seasonal closures for the 

Gunnison sage grouse from June 15 until 

August 31. This closure provides partial 

protection for A. microcymbus in the 

growing season. 

The South Beaver Creek Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

(also a Colorado Natural Area) was 

designated in 1993 by the BLM with the 

intent of protecting and enhancing 

existing populations of Astragalus 

microcymbus (BLM 1993, pp. 2.18, 2.29; 

Colorado Natural Areas Program [CNAP] 

1997, pp. 1–7). The South Beaver Creek 

ACEC is 1,847 ha (4,565 ac), and 

includes 60 percent of the A. 

microcymbus units rangewide (BLM 

1993, p. 2.18; USFWS 2010b, pp. 8–9). 

Seventy percent of the South Beaver 

Creek ACEC is within the Hartman 

Rocks Recreation Area, although the 

South Beaver Creek ACEC was 

developed at least 8 years prior to the 

Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 

2005a, p. 44). Because of its designation 

as a recreation area, the Hartman Rocks 

Recreation Area draws users to the area, 

which is in conflict with the ACEC’s 

intent to protect and enhance A. 

microcymbus. 

When the South Beaver Creek ACEC 

was designated, motorized vehicle 

traffic was limited to designated routes, 

whereas it had previously been open on 

all lands (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). Outside 

the South Beaver Creek ACEC, all lands 

within the range of Astragalus 

microcymbus remained open to 

motorized vehicle traffic. In 2001, 

mechanized travel, including mountain 

bikes, on all lands within the Gunnison 

Resource Area including the South 

Beaver Creek ACEC and the Hartman 

Rocks Recreation Area was limited to 

designated routes (U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) and BLM 2001a, p. 3; 2001b, pp. 

1–2; BLM 2005a, p. 14). This closure 

resulted in new protections for A. 

microcymbus from mountain bikes and 

vehicular use on BLM lands outside the 

South Beaver Creek ACEC, and from 

mountain bikes within the ACEC. 

Enforcement of travel designations 

and trail closures is difficult given the 

large area of the BLM’s Gunnison 

Resource Area and limited law 

enforcement personnel (USFS and BLM 

2010, p. 259). Illegal trails are always an 

issue in well-used recreation areas (BLM 

2010, p. 4). Furthermore, the open parklike habitat of Astragalus microcymbus 

makes it difficult to disguise trails that 

have been closed. Numerous 

undesignated trails running through A. 

microcymbus habitat are visible on 

satellite images (see below). Law 

enforcement with the Gunnison 

Resource Area is provided by the BLM’s 

Montrose Area Office, which is located 

over 105 km (65 mi) away. Law 

enforcement within this area is 

intermittent, and tickets are rarely, if 

ever, issued for trespass use (USFS and 

BLM 2010, p. 259). 

As an example, the Quarry Drop trail 

that runs through the South Beaver 

Creek 1 Unit was closed in 2005 with 

the Hartman Rocks Recreation Plan, 

because it ran directly through two 

Astragalus microcymbus sites (BLM 

2010, p. 4). Although this trail is posted 

as closed, it was still in use during the 

summer of 2009, when rocks were 

placed to close the trail entrance (BLM 

2010, p. 4). The Gunnison Trails group 

(a local non-profit trail-building group) 

and the BLM have increased their efforts 

on finding illegal trails and closing them 

before they become more established. 

Continued pressure from the recreation 

community for new trail construction is 

likely, as well as trespass use (BLM 

2010, p. 4). In an effort to control illegal 

use, the BLM has put up educational 

signs where roads enter the South 

Beaver Creek ACEC explaining what A. 

microcymbus is and why the species 

and its habitat are important to preserve 

(BLM 2010, p. 6). Trails that have been 

closed are planned to be rehabilitated 

where they meet open trails during the 

summer of 2011 in an attempt to ensure 

they will no longer be used (Japuntich 

2010d, pers. comm.). 

The BLM and the USFS finalized a 

joint Environmental Impact Statement 

for a Gunnison Basin Federal Lands 

Travel Management Plan that includes 

areas on BLM lands outside the 

Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (USFS 

and BLM 2010, pp. 1–288). This plan 

builds upon the Gunnison Travel 

Interim Restrictions of 2001 by closing 

additional routes, mostly for resourcerelated reasons (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 

1). Astragalus microcymbus is not 

considered in detail in this plan, nor 

does the plan designate roads be closed 

specifically to protect A. microcymbus 

(USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 47, 78–79). 

None of the closures proposed in the 

plan will benefit A. microcymbus nor do 

they address routes within the Hartman 

Rocks Recreation Area. 

We have found roads, trails, and 

gravel parking areas atop Astragalus 

microcymbus individuals and polygons 

(USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). These 

roads, trails, and parking areas have no 

vegetation. A. microcymbus individuals 

can be found along the margins of these 

roads, trails, and parking areas, 

sometimes with tire tracks atop (USFWS 

2010, pers. comm.). Cheatgrass is 

spreading from the old road bed upslope 

and into the one site where invasion is 

occurring (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). 

Trails sometimes are deeply incised and 

eroded (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). 

We conducted a spatial analysis 

overlaying the distribution of Astragalus 

microcymbus units with designated 

routes within and near the Hartman 

Rocks Recreation Area. We found 8.8 

km (5.5 mi) of roads (3.5 km (2.3 mi)) 

and trails (5.3 km (3.2 mi)) overlap with 

A. microcymbus units (Table 3) (BLM 

2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 14–15). 

Through this mapping effort, we found 

four of the polygons within the Gold 

Basin Creek Unit are being directly 

impacted by these roads and trails 

(USFWS 2010b, p. 16). We also are 

aware of at least three other polygons 

that are being directly impacted by 

roads and trails (USFWS 2010, pers. 

comm.). Estimating that a road typically 

removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha 

(1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) while a single 

track trail removes all vegetation from 

about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) 

(BLM 2005a, p. 13), designated roads 

directly impact 1.6 ha (3.9 ac) and 

designated trails directly impact 0.3 ha 

(0.8 ac) of habitat within A. 

microcymbus units. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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] 

Unit name 

Designated Undesignated 

Total 

Roads km (mi) 

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

Unit name Road 

km (mi) 

Trail and path 

km (mi) 

Direct 20-m (66-ft) buffer 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

contour plowed and seeded, all within 

the Gold Basin Creek (USFWS 2010b, 

pp. 18–19). These contoured areas 

surround the Gold Basin Creek Unit, but 

there is very little overlap. We are 

unsure the impact that these contour 

efforts may have had on A. 

microcymbus in the past. We speculate 

there may have been an impact to the 

species from these seeding efforts in the 

past given that there is very little 

overlap between the Gold Basin Creek 

Unit and the contoured areas, despite 

the contoured areas surrounding the 

unit on the east, north and west sides 

(USFWS 2010b, p. 19). 

These contoured areas were seeded 

with crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

cristatum). Most areas where Astragalus 

microcymbus is found do not overlap 

with sites where crested wheatgrass is 

found in abundance (USFWS 2010b, pp. 

18–19). Crested wheatgrass is commonly 

found outside the contoured areas at the 

Gold Basin Creek and Henry Units 

(USFWS 2010, pers. comm.), and we 

assume it has spread into these adjacent 

native habitats from the contoured 

areas. Crested wheatgrass is often used 

for rangeland seedings because seed is 

widely available, it establishes easily, 

provides suitable forage for livestock, 

provides some erosion control, and 

controls competition from other 

nonnative invasive plants (Walker and 

Shaw 2005, p. 56). Crested wheatgrass is 

extremely competitive and can outcompete other vegetation in several 

ways (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 82– 

83). Grasses, such as crested wheatgrass, 

are wind pollinated and, therefore, do 

not provide resources such as nectar or 

edible pollen for pollinators. 

The contour plowings and seedings of 

crested wheatgrass affect only a small 

proportion (1.2 percent) of the 

Astragalus microcymbus units. The 

likelihood of future seedings is low 

because vegetative treatments that 

would adversely affect A. microcymbus 

are no longer allowed (BLM 1993, p. 

2.29). Because crested wheatgrass 

continues to invade native habitats from 

these seedings, and because the plowed 

areas may not provide good floral 

resources for pollinators, we find these 

continuing effects of past contour 

plowing and nonnative seeding to 

impact the species but not to the point 

where it poses a threat to the continued 

existence of the species. We expect 

crested wheatgrass and pollinator 

impacts to continue into the foreseeable 

future since it does not appear that the 

crested wheatgrass is disappearing. 

Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat 

Livestock Use—Potential threats 

related to livestock, deer, and elk use 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 westcentral Colorado increased 3.6 °C (2 °F) 

over the past 30 years, but high 

variability in annual precipitation 

precludes the detection of long-term 

trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 5). At one 

weather station in Gunnison, Colorado, 

temperature has increased roughly 1.8 

°C (1 °F) since 1900 (WRCC 2010c, pp. 

1–9). 

Future projections for the 

southwestern United States, including 

the Gunnison Basin, show increased 

probability of drought (Karl et al. 2009, 

pp. 129–134). Additionally, the number 

of days over 32 °C (90 °F) could double 

by the end of the century (Karl et al. 

2009, p. 34). Annual temperature is 

predicted to increase approximately 2.2 

°C (4 °F) in the southwest by 2050, with 

summers warming more than winters 

(Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Projections also 

show declines in snowpack across the 

West with the most dramatic declines at 

lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 

ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Overall, 

future projections for the Southwest 

predict increased temperatures, more 

intense and longer-lasting heat waves, 

an increased probability of drought that 

are worsened by higher temperatures, 

heavier downpours, increased flooding, 

and increased erosion (Karl et al. 2009, 

pp. 129–134). 

Colorado’s complex, mountainous 

topography results in a high degree of 

spatial variability across the State. As a 

result, localized climate projections are 

problematic for mountainous areas 

because current global climate models 

are unable to capture this variability at 

local or regional scales (Ray et al. 2008, 

pp. 7, 20). To obtain climate projections 

specific to the range of Astragalus 

microcymbus, we used a statistically 

downscaled model from the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research for a 

region covering western Colorado. The 

resulting projections indicate that 

temperature could increase an average 

of 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) by 2050 with the 

following seasonal increases: summer 

(July through September) 2.8 °C (5.0 °F), 

fall (October through December) 2.2 °C 

(4.0 °F), winter (January through March) 

2.3 °C (4.1 °F), and spring (April 

through June) 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) (University 

Corporation of Atmospheric Research 

(UCAR) 2009, pp. 1–14). This increase 

in temperature could be problematic for 

A. microcymbus because the species is 

negatively affected by warm 

temperatures during May and July (DBG 

2010a, p. 6). 

Annual mean precipitation 

projections for Colorado are unclear; 

however, multi-model averages show a 

shift toward increased winter 

precipitation and decreased spring and 

summer precipitation by the end of the 

century (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl et 

al. 2009, p. 30). Similarly, the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research results 

show the highest probability of a 7.5 

percent increase in average winter 

(January through March) precipitation, 

an 11.4 percent decrease in average 

spring (April through June) 

precipitation, a 2.1 percent decrease in 

average summer (July through 

September) precipitation, and a 1.3 

percent increase in average fall 

precipitation with an overall very slight 

decrease in 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1– 

14). Seasonal trends from the past 100 

years at a local weather station do not 

yet match this scenario, and overall 

precipitation has declined by roughly 2 

cm (0.75 in.) or 10 percent (WRCC 

2010a, pp. 1–8). This actual data is in 

contrast to regional maps that show 

precipitation has increased roughly 5 

percent from 1958 to 2008 within the 

general area where Astragalus 

microcymbus resides (Karl et al. 2009, 

p. 30). A. microcymbus responds 

negatively to declines in overall 

precipitation and periods of drought, as 

well as declines in spring precipitation 

(May and July) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Given 

the observed decline in precipitation at 

a local weather station, predictions of 

increased drought, and a predicted 

significant decline in spring 

precipitation, we expect A. 

microcymbus will be affected negatively 

by climate change effects to 

precipitation. 

Climate change is likely to alter fire 

frequency, community assemblages, and 

the ability of nonnative species to 

proliferate. Increasing temperature as 

well as changes in the timing and 

amount of precipitation will alter the 

competitive advantage among plant 

species (Miller et al. in press, p. 44), and 

may shift individual species and 

ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. 

2001, p. 174). Dominant plant species 

such as big sagebrush have a 

disproportionate control over resources 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 springsummer growing season and increased 

summer temperatures will likely 

decrease growth of big sagebrush and 

could result in a significant long-term 

reduction in the distribution and 

composition of sagebrush communities 

(Miller et al. in press, pp. 41–45). In the 

Gunnison Basin, increased summer 

temperature was strongly correlated 

with reduced growth of big sagebrush 

(Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Although we 

do not fully understand how changes in 

plant communities will affect 

Astragalus microcymbus, we expect that 

a decrease in the dominant plant species 

will not be a benefit because it could 

drastically alter the way the ecosystem 

functions where A. microcymbus 

resides. In addition, changes in the 

plant community could likely influence 

wildfire frequency and erosion rates. 

Temperature increases may increase 

the competitive advantage of cheatgrass 

in higher elevation areas where it is 

currently limited (Miller et al. in press, 

p. 47), like the Gunnison Basin. 

Decreased summer precipitation, as 

predicted in the model, reduces the 

competitive advantage of summer 

perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush 

cover, and subsequently increases the 

likelihood of cheatgrass invasion 

(Prevey et al. 2009, pp. 1–13). This 

impact could increase the susceptibility 

of areas within Astragalus 

microcymbus’ range to cheatgrass 

invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204). In 

addition, cheatgrass and other C3 

grasses (C3 refers to one of three 

alternative photosynthetic pathways) 

are likely to thrive as atmospheric 

carbon dioxide increases (Mayeux et al. 

1994, p. 98). An increase in cheatgrass 

would likely increase wildfire 

frequency. See Nonnative Invasive 

Plants above for a discussion of 

cheatgrass and effects to A. 

microcymbus. 

Climate change predictions are based 

on models with assumptions, and are 

not absolute. In addition, we do not 

fully understand how climate change 

will affect the species or the habitat in 

which it resides. These factors make it 

difficult to predict the effects of climate 

change to Astragalus microcymbus. 

However, endemic species with limited 

ranges that are adapted to localized 

conditions, like A. microcymbus, are 

expected to be more severely impacted 

by climate change (Midgley et al. 2002, 

p. 448) than those considered habitat 

generalists. Furthermore, we expect the 

predicted increases in spring 

temperature, increased drought, and 

decreased spring precipitation will 

affect A. microcymbus negatively. 

Climate change has the potential to 

change the plant community, allow 

cheatgrass to increase, and potentially 

increase the risk of wildfire, which 

would likely have a negative effect to A. 

microcymbus. It is difficult to assess the 

threat of climate change to A. 

microcymbus given the uncertainties 

associated with future projections. 

However, based on the best available 

information on climate change 

projections into the next 40 years, we 

find climate change to be a threat to A. 

microcymbus based on how predicted 

changes could negatively influence the 

species. We recognize there are many 

uncertainties, and projections further 

into the future become even more 

uncertain, making it even more difficult 

to predict how climate change might 

affect the species. 

Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation 

Habitat fragmentation can have 

negative effects on biological 

populations. Often fragments are not of 

sufficient size to support the natural 

diversity prevalent in an area and so 

exhibit a decline in biodiversity (Noss 

and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 50–54). 

Habitat fragments are often functionally 

smaller than they appear because edge 

effects (such as increased nonnative 

species or wind speeds) impact the 

available habitat within the fragment 

(Lienert and Fischer 2003, p. 597). 

Habitat fragmentation has been shown 

to disrupt plant-pollinator interactions 

and predator-prey interactions (SteffanDewenter and Tscharntke 1999, pp. 

432–440), alter seed germination 

percentages (Menges 1991, pp. 158– 

164), and result in low fruit set 

(Cunningham 2000, pp. 1149–1152). 

Extensive habitat fragmentation can 

result in dramatic fluxes in available 

solar radiation, water, and nutrients 

(Saunders et al. 1991, pp. 18–32). 

Fragmentation within Astragalus 

microcymbus habitat is largely from 

linear features such as roads and utility 

corridors (see Recreation, Roads, and 

Trails and Utility Corridors above) that 

are pervasive at every A. microcymbus 

unit except the South Beaver Creek 4 

Unit. In addition, past contour plowings 

and subsequent seeding efforts have 

created blocks of altered and degraded 

habitat around A. microcymbus units 

that may affect the overall plant 

community, nonnative invasive plants, 

and pollinator habitat and resources. 

This type of fragmentation does not 

carry the same negative consequences as 

that of more highly fragmented habitats 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Accordingly, we find the threat from 

recreation, roads, and trails to be high. 

Although the impacts from nonnative 

invasive plants, and particularly 

cheatgrass, are low right now, we expect 

this factor to increase to the level of a 

serious threat in the near future. 

Cheatgrass is increasing in the South 

Beaver Creek drainage and has been 

identified as a major threat to Astragalus 

microcymbus (BLM 2010, p. 5). In the 

mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen 

in very small patches in the Gunnison 

Basin but can now be found in some 

abundance throughout the Basin (BLM 

2009a, pp. 7–8). A. microcymbus is 

found on warm, sparsely vegetated, and 

dry, south-facing slopes, which in the 

Gunnison Basin, are probably more 

vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion. We 

know that cheatgrass is already invading 

A. microcymbus sites. Cheatgrass has 

transformed millions of acres into 

monocultures in the Great Basin and has 

dramatically shortened the wildfire 

return interval. We believe the potential 

exists for a similar conversion in A. 

microcymbus habitat. Although we find 

the current invasion of cheatgrass into 

A. microcymbus habitat to be small and 

possess little threat, because of the high 

potential for further invasion, we find 

the overall threat is increasing. 

It is difficult to assess the impact of 

climate change to Astragalus 

microcymbus, but we believe climate 

change may be a future threat given the 

predictions of increased springtime 

temperatures, decreased springtime 

precipitation, and increased drought. 

Because a quarter of the Astragalus 

microcymbus units occur on private 

land, and given the rapid pace of 

development in the Gunnison Basin, we 

believe residential and urban 

development represent a moderate 

threat to A. microcymbus. Given that 

livestock, deer, and elk use occurs 

across the range of A. microcymbus, that 

A. microcymbus individuals are being 

lost from this use, and that this use is 

causing habitat degradation that could 

facilitate the spread of cheatgrass, we 

find this threat to be moderate. 

We find the potential impact of future 

wildfire to be a threat to the species and 

recognize that wildfire risk may increase 

with further cheatgrass invasion. We do 

not find utility corridors to be a threat 

because they currently impact only 4 

percent of the A. microcymbus units and 

we do not know of any further utility 

corridor plans. We do not find the 

continuing effects from past contour 

plowings and nonnative seedings to be 

a threat because the existing plowings 

only impact 1.2 percent of the A. 

microcymbus units and we do not 

expect these treatments to occur in the 

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 

(Korpima ̈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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

address the threat to the species such 

that listing is not warranted. 

An example of a regulatory 

mechanism is the terms and conditions 

attached to a grazing permit that 

describe how a permittee will manage 

livestock on a BLM allotment. They are 

nondiscretionary and enforceable, and 

would be considered a regulatory 

mechanism under this analysis. Other 

examples include city or county 

ordinances, State governmental actions 

enforced under State statute regulations, 

or Federal action under statute or 

regulation. Actions adopted by local 

groups, States, or Federal entities that 

are discretionary or are not enforceable, 

including conservation strategies and 

guidance, are typically not regulatory 

mechanisms. In this section we review 

actions undertaken by local, State, and 

Federal entities designed to reduce or 

remove threats to Astragalus 

microcymbus and its habitat. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 trends ............................................... Being done regularly at 4 plots 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 conditions to protect species & its 

habitat.

Some control of vehicles 

Development of management plan for Astragalus microcymbus ............ Not implemented 

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 designated routes ............................. Implemented although enforcement is problematic 

Public lands with A. microcymbus will not be disposed .......................... Implemented 

Acquisition of non-Federal lands if available ........................................... Not implemented 

ROW permitted without direct impacts to A. microcymbus ..................... Implemented 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Creek ACEC designation, while 

providing limited protection for A. 

microcymbus, was not adequate to 

preclude the designation of a recreation 

area in the same location (70 percent of 

the ACEC). We cannot say what will 

happen with A. microcymbus in the 

upcoming RMP revision, but if we 

consider conservation efforts since the 

last RMP revision, we expect A. 

microcymbus and its habitat will 

continue to decline in the foreseeable 

future. We find that Federal laws and 

regulations are currently inadequate to 

protect the species from being 

threatened or endangered. 

Summary of Factor D 

Twenty-five percent of Astragalus 

microcymbus habitat occurs on private 

lands with no regulatory protections. No 

State laws protect the species. On 

Federal lands, the species is managed as 

a sensitive species but this designation 

has not adequately protected the 

species. Over 40 percent of the A. 

microcymbus habitat and 70 percent of 

the South Beaver Creek ACEC lies 

within the federally managed Hartman 

Rocks Recreation Area, which serves to 

focus human use in this area, a 

designation that runs counter to the 

protection of the species. For these 

reasons, we find the existing regulatory 

mechanisms to be inadequate because of 

increasing recreation and development 

potential on private land. We find that 

Astragalus microcymbus is threatened 

by the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms now and these threats are 

expected to continue or increase in the 

foreseeable future. 

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 allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the 

Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws 

users and contains over 40 percent of 

the A. microcymbus units. The overall 

threat from a lack of existing regulatory 

mechanisms is high given that 25 

percent of the habitat has no protections 

and that Federal protections allowed a 

recreation area to be developed on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

factor 

Threat or 

impact 

Scope of threat or 

impact Intensity Exposure (%) 

Likelihood of 

exposure 

Species’ 

response 

Foreseeable 

future Overall threat 

A ............... Residential 

& Urban 

Development.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 25 ............... Moderate .............. Loss of habitat, loss of 

sites, pollinator impacts.

Development within several 

decades.

Moderate. 

A ............... Recreation, 

Roads, & 

Trails.

High ...................... High ...................... 15 (20-m 

buffer) to 

46 (100-m 

buffer).

High ...................... Loss of sites 

& habitat, 

habitat 

degradation, nonnatives, 

pollinator 

impacts.

Significant 

increase 

(+20% annually) in 

users.

High. 

A ............... Utility Corridors.Low ....................... Low ....................... 4 ................. Moderate .............. Loss of sites 

& habitat, 

habitat 

degradation.

No immediate 

plans, limited in 

scope.

None, impact only. 

A ............... Nonnative 

Invasive 

Plants.

Low ....................... Low+ ..................... 0.1+ ............ High ...................... Competition, 

wildfire, 

pollinator 

impacts.

Increasing 

with rapid 

increase 

possible.

None, but increasing 

quickly. 

A ............... Wildfire ....... Low ....................... None+ ................... None but 

nearby.

Low+ ..................... Nonnatives, 

species’ 

response 

to wildfire 

unknown.

Difficult to 

estimate, 

will relate 

to cheatgrass invasion.

Low+. 

A ............... Contour 

Plowing & 

Nonnative 

Seedings.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 1.2 .............. Low ....................... Presumable 

loss, habitat degradation, 

pollinator 

impacts.

Future 

seedings 

unlikely.

None, impact only. 

A ............... Livestock, 

Deer, & 

Elk Use of 

Habitat.

Moderate .............. Low to Moderate .. 95+ ............. Moderate .............. Habitat Degradation, 

trampling, 

pollinator 

impacts.

Permitted 

AUMs 

would increase impacts, 

deer & elk 

impacts 

could increase.

Moderate. 

A ............... Mining; Oil & 

Gas Leasing.

Low ....................... Low ....................... none ........... Low ....................... Loss if mining occurred.Little activity, 

unlikely in 

the foreseeable 

future.

None+. 

A ............... Climate 

Change.

Moderate? ............ Moderate? ............ 100 ............. Moderate .............. Unknown 

but would 

likely 

cause a 

decline.

Climate 

models 

predict 40- 

year 

changes.

Moderate? 

A ............... Habitat 

Fragmentation 

& Degradation.

High ...................... Low ....................... 100 ............. High ...................... Habitat degradation, 

genetic 

isolation.

A byproduct 

of other 

threats.

High. 

B ............... None ........... ............................... ............................... ..................... ............................... ..................... not likely to 

change.

None. 

C ............... Small Mammal 

Herbivory.

Moderate .............. Moderate+ ............ ∼80, likely 

varies by 

year.

High ...................... Affecting 

seed set.

Likely to 

continue & 

fluctuate 

with herbivore population.

Low to Moderate. 

C ............... Deer & Elk 

Herbivory.

Low ....................... Low ....................... winter .......... Low ....................... Minimal, 

could affect seed 

set.

Winter use 

makes 

herbivory 

less likely.

None+. 

C ............... Livestock 

Herbivory.

Low ....................... Low ....................... occasional .. Low ....................... Could affect 

seed set.

Steep slopes 

makes 

herbivory 

less likely.

None. 

C ............... Insect 

Herbivory.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 3 ................. Moderate .............. Could affect 

seed set.

No 

measureable impact.

None. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS—Continued 

Listing 

factor 

Threat or 

impact 

Scope of threat or 

impact Intensity Exposure (%) 

Likelihood of 

exposure 

Species’ 

response 

Foreseeable 

future Overall threat 

C ............... Disease ...... Low ....................... Low ....................... trace ........... Low ....................... Death? ........ Rare ............ None. 

D ............... Local Land 

Use Laws, 

& Ordinances.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 25 ............... Moderate+ ............ Loss of habitat, loss of 

sites, pollinator impacts.

Development within several 

decades.

Moderate. 

D ............... State Laws 

& Regulations.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 25+ ............. Moderate+ ............ Loss of habitat, loss of 

sites, pollinator impacts.

Development within several 

decades.

Moderate. 

D ............... Federal 

Laws & 

Regulations.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 75 ............... Moderate+ ............ Influenced 

by management 

actions.

Continued 

course will 

trend 

downward.

Moderate. 

E ............... Periodic 

Drought.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 100 ............. High ...................... Decline ....... Climate 

change 

models 

predict increasing 

drought.

Moderate. 

E ............... Small Populations.Low ....................... Low ....................... 7 ................. Low ....................... Loss of genetic diversity.Increase if 

wildfires & 

cheatgrass increase.

None, impact only 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We consider the threats that 

A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in 

magnitude because the major threats 

(recreation, roads, and trails; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation 

and degradation), while serious and 

occurring rangewide, do not collectively 

rise to the level of high magnitude. For 

example, the last known populations are 

not about to be completely lost to 

development. These threats are not 

likely to eliminate the species in the 

immediate future. The threats the 

species faces are, however, significant. 

Recreational impacts are likely to 

increase given the close proximity of A. 

microcymbus to the town of Gunnison 

and the increasing popularity of 

mountain biking, motorcycling, and allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the 

Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws 

users and was designated atop 40 

percent of the A. microcymbus ‘‘units’’. 

The overall threat from the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is 

high given that 25 percent of the habitat 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assigned Astragalus microcymbus an 

LPN of 8. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Astragalus microcymbus, and 

the species’ status on an annual basis, 

and should the magnitude or the 

imminence of the threats change, we 

will re-visit our assessment of LPN. 

Because we have assigned Astragalus 

microcymbus an LPN of 8, work on a 

proposed listing determination for A. 

microcymbus is precluded by work on 

higher priority listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court-ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from FY 2010. This work includes 

all the actions listed in the tables below 

under expeditious progress (see Tables 

9 and 10). 

Species Information—Astragalus 

schmolliae 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Astragalus schmolliae was first 

collected in Montezuma County, 

southwestern Colorado, in 1890. It was 

formally described as a species in 1945, 

when C.L. Porter named it after Dr. 

Hazel Marguerite Schmoll (Porter 1945, 

pp. 100–102; Barneby 1964, pp. 277– 

278; Isely 1998, p. 417). Astragalus 

schmolliae is a member of the family 

Fabaceae (legume family). The perennial 

plants are upright, 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 

in.) tall with one to several stems 

branching from an underground root 

crown. Its leaves are typical of many of 

the legumes, with 11 to 20 small leaflets 

on a stem. Leaves and stems are ashcolored due to a covering of short hairs. 

Flowers are creamy white and borne on 

upright stalks that extend above the 

leafy stems. The fruit is a pod, 3 to 4 cm 

(1 to 1.5 in.) long, covered with flat, stiff 

hairs, pendulous and curving 

downward (Barneby 1964, pp. 277–278). 

The deep taproot grows to 40 cm (16 in.) 

or more (Friedlander 1980, pp. 59–62). 

Biology, Distribution, and Abundance 

Astragalus schmolliae plants emerge 

in early spring and usually begin 

flowering in late April or early May. 

Flowering continues into early or midJune (Friedlander 1980, p. 63, Peterson 

1981, p. 14). Fruit set begins in late May 

and occurs through June, and by late 

June most fruits have opened and 

released their seeds, while still attached 

to the plant. The typical plant lifespan 

of A. schmolliae is unknown, but 

individuals are thought to live up to 20 

years (Colyer 2002 in Anderson 2004, p. 

11). During very dry years, as observed 

in 2002, the plants can remain dormant 

with no above-ground growth (Colyer 

2003 in Anderson 2004, p. 11). Most of 

the plants produce above-ground shoots 

and flower profusely during growing 

seasons following wet winters. 

Astragalus schmolliae requires 

pollination by insects to set fruit. 

Flowers require a strong insect for 

pollination, such as a bumblebee, 

because the insect must force itself 

between the petals of the butterflyshaped flowers. Pollinators observed on 

A. schmolliae include several species of 

bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and beeflies 

(Bombylius spp.) (Friedlander 1980, p. 

63). 

The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae 

is mature pinyon-juniper woodland of 

mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National 

Park (MEVE) area at elevations between 

1,981 to 2,286 meters (6,500 to 7,500 

feet) (Anderson 2004, p. ii). The plants 

are found in both sunny and shaded 

locations (Peterson 1981, p. 12), 

primarily on deep, reddish loess soils, 

and are generally less common near cliff 

edges and in ravines where the soil is 

shallower. No A. schmolliae plants are 

found in the mountain shrublands at the 

upper elevations on MEVE. 

The CNHP prepared a population 

status survey of Astragalus schmolliae 

in 2004 for MEVE. The report is based 

on field surveys in 2001 and 2003 of the 

distribution, density, soil 

characteristics, seed viability and 

germinability, and recruitment in 

burned and unburned areas of MEVE. 

This study provides the primary source 

of information for our evaluation of the 

status and threats to A. schmolliae, and 

is cited throughout this finding as 

Anderson (2004). 

Astragalus schmolliae habitat 

collectively occupies approximately 

1,619 ha (4,000 ac) in MEVE and on the 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park (Tribal 

Park). About 809 ha (2,000 ac) are in 

MEVE on Chapin Mesa including 

Fewkes and Spruce Canyons, on the 

West Chapin Spur, and on Park Mesa 

(CNHP 2010, pp. 12–19; Anderson 2004, 

p. 25, 30; MEVE 2010, p.1). Occupied 

habitat on Chapin Mesa in the Tribal 

Park south of MEVE probably covers 

another 809 ha (2,000 ac), where 

surveys have not been done (Anderson 

2004, p. 6; Friedlander 1980, p. 53; 

CNHP 2010, pp. 20–21). Abundant 

plants were observed on the tribal land 

in 1987 (Colyer 2002, in Anderson 2004, 

p. 4; CNHP 2010, p. 21). The total 

number and average density of plants on 

the Tribal Park are not known, because 

no inventories have been completed 

(Clow 2010, pers. comm.). 

TABLE 7—Astragalus schmolliae OCCURRENCES

[CNHP 2010, pp. 1–21; Anderson 2004, p. 6, 30] 

Occurrence Ha (Ac) Plants 

2001 

Plants 

2003 

Density 

2001 

Density 

2003 

CNHP 

Rank* 

Chapin Mesa, Fewkes & 

Spruce Canyons 

(MEVE).

785 (1,939) 454,733 277,462 .06 per sq meter ........ .037 per sq meter ...... A 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 pinyonjuniper woodlands and burned less than 

1 ha (2.5 ac). The southern half of MEVE 

was covered with dense, old-growth 

pinyon-juniper woodlands that had not 

burned for several centuries. However, 

the 20th century has seen several 

spectacular wildfires that burned 

extensive portions of these pinyonjuniper woodlands (Floyd et al. 1999, p. 

149). Best estimates for ‘‘natural’’ fire 

turnover times in MEVE are about 100 

years for shrubland vegetation and 

about 400 years for pinyon-juniper 

vegetation. Although the disturbance 

regime for this system apparently 

remains within the historical range of 

variability, the recovery processes 

following fire have been dramatically 

altered from historical processes (Floyd 

et al. 2006, p. 248). Recurrent fires favor 

clonal, resprouting shrub species such 

as Quercus gambelii (gambel oak), 

Amelanchier utahensis (Utah 

serviceberry), Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus (mountain snowberry), 

Fendlera rupicola (cliff fendlerbush), 

and Rhus trilobata (three-leaf sumac), 

and gradually eliminate the firesensitive pinyon and juniper (Floyd et 

al. 2000, p. 1667, 1677). A. schmolliae 

does not grow in the shrub-dominated 

areas of MEVE now, and we cannot 

predict the long- term success of the 

species following removal of the 

pinyon-juniper overstory. 

Landscape modeling of the effects of 

projected cheatgrass increase on fire 

frequency in MEVE indicates the 

potential for frequent reburning. 

Projections show a fire rotation of about 

45 years for MEVE. Such a frequent 

disturbance regime would be far outside 

the historical range of variability for the 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

97 years (Anderson 2004, p. 48). 

Recruitment appears to be highly 

episodic and is probably greatest in 

years that are moist in March through 

May (Anderson 2004, p. iv). Plants in 

areas burned in 2002 displayed higher 

reproductive effort and vigor, and 

produced approximately 241 times more 

seeds per plant than did plants in 

unburned areas. It is likely that this 

resulted in part from depletion of 

pollinator resources in unburned areas. 

Plants in areas burned in 1996 on Park 

Mesa had very high vigor in 2003 

(possibly due to high soil nitrate levels 

after fire) but did not set fruit although 

flowers were produced and insect 

visitation was observed (Anderson 2004, 

p. iv). 

Seed bank studies for other Astragalus 

species indicate that the group generally 

possesses hard impermeable seed coats 

with a strong physical germination 

barrier. As a result, the seeds are 

generally long-lived in the soil and only 

a small percentage of seeds germinate 

each year (Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). 

However, we do not know if the seed 

germination strategy for other 

Astragalus species is comparable to that 

employed by A. schmolliae. 

The growth habit of Astragalus 

schmolliae suggests that it is tolerant of 

fire, with its deep taproot and shallowly 

buried root crown, to which the plant 

dies back during winter months. Plants 

can resprout following a low-intensity 

fire if the root crown is not damaged 

(Floyd-Hanna et al. 1997, 1998). 

Reproductive effort and fecundity were 

clearly higher in areas burned in 2002, 

and vigor also appeared to be greater. 

However, net reproductive success in 

post-fire environments has not been 

monitored, so it is unclear whether fire 

effects have a negative or beneficial 

initial impact on A. schmolliae. While 

fire may confer some short-term benefits 

to plants in burned areas (possibly at the 

expense of reproductive success in 

unburned areas if depletion of 

pollinator resources is responsible for 

poor fecundity), it may have long-term 

detrimental impacts (Anderson 2004, p. 

64). 

We conclude that the direct effects of 

fire on Astragalus schmolliae are both 

positive and negative. Plants burn to the 

ground and then resprout the following 

spring if the fire is not too intense, but 

then have competition from weeds and 

grasses. We do not know whether net 

reproduction after fire is positive. Given 

the high frequency and volume of fires 

in the area it is highly likely that new 

fires will burn more of the habitat for A. 

schmolliae. All of the burned and 

remaining unburned habitat on MEVE 

and the Tribal Park is at risk of burning 

within the foreseeable future. Although 

we remain concerned about the 

potential impacts of recurring fires, the 

best available information indicates that 

the direct effects of wildfires do not 

pose a threat to A. schmolliae. The 

indirect effect of facilitating invasion of 

the habitat by cheatgrass does pose a 

significant threat to the species. 

Invasive Nonnative Plants 

As discussed above, the main threat to 

the species is the indirect effect of 

invasion by nonnative plant species 

(weeds). This invasion is facilitated by 

the increased frequency of burns as well 

as the clearing of areas within occupied 

Astragalus schmolliae habitat (CNHP 

2006, p. 4). In MEVE, large wildfires 

that occurred earlier in the twentieth 

century (1934, 1959, 1972) were not 

associated with weed invasion (Floyd et 

al. 1999, p. 148), but the pinyon-juniper 

forests that have burned extensively in 

the past two decades are being replaced 

by significant invasions of weedy 

species, especially Bromus tectorum 

(cheatgrass), Carduus nutans (musk 

thistle), and Cirsium arvense (Canada 

thistle) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 1). 

Since 1996, MEVE has seen more 

large fires and more cumulative area 

burned than occurred during the 

previous 200 years (Romme et al. 2006, 

p. 3). This recent increase in fire activity 

is a result of severe drought conditions 

preceded by wet climatic conditions 

and increasing fuel load due to fire 

suppression in the pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, all coinciding with the 

natural end of a long fire cycle (Floyd 

et al. 2006, p. 247). A recent 

development in the post-fire habitat 

response is the remarkably rapid spread 

of cheatgrass. This weedy winter annual 

germinates in the fall, grows slowly 

during the winter, and then grows 

rapidly in the early spring. By early 

summer it has set seed and died, 

creating a continuous fuel bed of quickdrying, flashy fine fuel that can readily 

carry fire, even without wind. 

Cheatgrass has been in MEVE for many 

years. However, it was never 

widespread until 2000, when unusually 

warm dry summers and winters, 

coupled with heavy fall rains, have 

allowed cheatgrass to rapidly expand its 

range, especially in places where fire or 

other disturbances have created bare 

ground (Romme et al. 2006, p. 3). 

Mature pinyon-juniper woodlands are 

highly vulnerable to post-fire weed 

invasion (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254). 

Cheatgrass is now a dominant species in 

much of the area burned in MEVE 

(Romme et al. 2006, pp. 2–3) and it has 

inundated the burned and disturbed 

portions of Astragalus schmolliae 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78543 

was applied intensively in the oldgrowth pinyon-juniper community. The 

density of Carduus nutans was 

significantly reduced by seeding in 

burned areas. There has been no 

evidence that the diversity of native 

forbs has declined by introducing native 

perennial grasses (Floyd et al. 1999, p. 

155), but Astragalus schmolliae was not 

specifically monitored. Therefore, we 

are unsure if these efforts to prevent 

weed invasion negatively affect A. 

schmolliae. 

Seeding of native grasses has not 

prevented the spread of cheatgrass into 

burned areas; instead, cheatgrass 

invasion has increased (Floyd et al. 

2006, p. 254). If cheatgrass continues to 

spread into recently burned areas in 

MEVE, it is likely to alter the previous 

regime of infrequent fires occurring 

during extremely dry periods to a new 

regime of frequent fires. Because the 

native flora is adapted to the historical 

fire regime, a change of this kind could 

produce rapid and irreversible 

degradation of native vegetation in the 

park (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 257). We 

believe this could be the case in 

Astragalus schmolliae habitat. 

Releases of two biological control 

weevils on Carduus nutans have been 

highly effective in reducing the density, 

vigor, and net fecundity of the thistle 

plants in Astragalus schmolliae habitat 

on MEVE. Aerial seeding with native 

grass species has provided effective 

competition for some of the weeds and 

improved the proportion of native to 

invasive plants (Nelligan 2010, p. 2). 

Post-fire weed control by aerial 

seeding of native grasses, mechanical 

removal, herbicides, and bio-control has 

reduced competition by invasive weeds 

other than cheatgrass, and there is little 

documentation of negative effects on 

Astragalus schmolliae. We consider the 

impacts of these activities to be low, not 

rising to the level of a threat to the 

species. 

Wildfire and Fuels Management 

Wildfire management at MEVE 

includes the creation of fire breaks, fire 

lines, and staging areas, all of which 

remove the mature pinyon-juniper 

woodland habitat for Astragalus 

schmolliae. A cattle fence 4.2 km (2.6 

mi) long separates the northern half of 

the species’ habitat on MEVE from the 

southern half on the Tribal Park. MEVE 

created a fire break about 30 m (100 ft) 

wide along this fence by cutting all 

vegetation to ground level. The break 

covers about 14 ha (34 ac), or 0.9 

percent of the species total habitat, at 

the center of distribution for A. 

schmolliae. On the Tribal Park side of 

the fence, the pinyon-juniper woodland 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

MEVE. Regular maintenance and 

construction projects at MEVE will 

continue to result in a small amount of 

plant mortality. Trampling of plants by 

people using trails, roads, and picnic 

areas in the developed portion of MEVE 

also eliminates a small number of plants 

(Nelligan 2010, p. 2). Likewise on the 

Tribal Park, most foot traffic is limited 

to routes used by escorted tour groups 

and, therefore, likely to have a very 

small impact on the species. 

Trampling of plants by visitors and 

staff is an ongoing impact that does not 

rise to the level of a threat because it 

affects plants in a very limited portion 

of the species range in MEVE and in the 

Tribal Park. Astragalus schmolliae may 

recover from this kind of disturbance if 

the below-ground parts are not 

damaged, or if undamaged plants 

remain nearby to provide a seed source 

and the disturbance is not constantly 

repeated or followed up with additional 

disturbances. One attempt to transplant 

mature plants that were growing in a 

planned construction area was 

unsuccessful because the taproots were 

severed (Nelligan 2010, p. 2). 

Construction of new roads, a visitor 

center, and campground are ongoing in 

MEVE. Most of the new construction is 

outside of Astragalus schmolliae 

habitat. Most of the disturbance in 

occupied habitat is related to a water 

pipeline, and because it is directionally 

drilled from one pad of about 4 by 24 

m (14 by 80 ft) alongside the park road, 

the impact on the plants is negligible 

(San Miguel 2010b, pers. comm.). 

The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae 

on tribal land is within the Tribal Park, 

which is managed for protection of its 

cultural and natural resources. It is an 

undeveloped area without surfaced 

roads or permanent facilities. We are not 

aware of any development activities on 

the Tribal Park that would impact A. 

schmolliae (Mayo 2010, pers. comm.). 

Overall, the impact of existing 

development appears low, impacting 

about 2.3 percent of the species’ entire 

range. MEVE will likely continue to 

locate major facilities outside of 

Astragalus schmolliae habitat, and 

minimize infrastructure within the 

habitat in the future. Most of the habitat 

within MEVE is protected from 

development, being within a National 

Park. Likewise, the Tribal Park is likely 

to remain undeveloped (Mayo 2010, 

pers. comm.). Therefore, development 

does not appear to constitute a threat to 

A. schmolliae, now nor is it likely to in 

the foreseeable future. 

Drought and Climate Change 

Drought may affect Astragalus 

schmolliae. In 2002, severe drought 

caused most A. schmolliae individuals 

to remain dormant (Anderson 2004, p. 

4). The total annual precipitation 

measured at MEVE in 2002 was 28 cm 

(11 in.), well below the average of 44 cm 

(17.5 in.) for 1948 to 2003. However, 

there were 5 years between 1948 and 

1989 in which MEVE received less than 

28 cm (11 in.). Tree ring analysis 

indicates that droughts were as common 

during the Ancestral Puebloan 

occupation of MEVE, from 

approximately A.D. 600 to A.D. 1300, as 

they are today. It is likely that drought 

is common enough that A. schmolliae 

can recover from its effects (Anderson 

2004, p. 35), provided that severity and 

duration of drought does not exceed 

historical levels, or that threats such as 

weed invasion do not increase 

significantly as a result. Periodic 

drought causes A. schmolliae plants and 

seedlings to dry out during a given year, 

and contributes to increased fire 

frequency and weed invasion. We 

believe that drought has a low-level 

direct impact on the species. It also 

facilitates cheatgrass invasion and 

increased fire frequency and therefore is 

a threat to the species. 

Projections for changes in climate 

within Astragalus schmolliae habitat are 

similar to those discussed above for 

Astragalus microcymbus. Overall, future 

projections for the Southwestern United 

States include increased temperatures, 

more intense and longer-lasting heat 

waves, and an increased probability of 

drought, that are worsened by higher 

temperatures, heavier downpours, 

increased flooding, and increased 

erosion (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129–134). 

Projections for western Colorado 

indicate that temperature could increase 

an average of 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) by 2050 

(UCAR 2009, pp. 1–14). 

The increasing frequency of largescale fires is largely due to periodic 

drought conditions preceded by years of 

wet climatic conditions that allowed 

heavy fuel loads to accumulate (Floyd et 

al. 2006, p. 247). The specific 

combination of a wet season followed 

by drought, which is likely to be 

exacerbated by climate change, is 

unpredictable at this time. We expect 

that A. schmolliae will be affected 

negatively by climate change effects on 

precipitation, but the available 

information is too speculative to 

conclude that climate change now 

threatens the species. 

Summary of Factor A 

The highest threat to Astragalus 

schmolliae habitat is the invasion of 

nonnative cheatgrass following 

wildfires, prescribed fires, and fire break 

clearings. Recent wildfires have burned 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 grounddisturbing activities. Grazing is allowed 

(Clow 2010, pers. comm.), but we do not 

believe it substantially impacts the 

species. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is 

drafting a management plan for species 

at risk that will include monitoring of A. 

schmolliae plants and habitat. The final 

draft plan may be completed in 2010 or 

2011 (Clow 2010, pers. comm.). The 

management plan will assist us in better 

understanding the extent to which the 

Tribe plans to conserve the species and 

its habitat. 

Despite the positive management for 

Astragalus schmolliae that occurs 

within MEVE and the Tribal Park, no 

formal plans are in place for mitigation 

of threats from cheatgrass and other fire 

effects. 

Summary of Factor D 

We expect that Astragalus schmolliae 

habitat on the Tribal Park is generally 

protected from human disturbance by 

tribal regulations that do not allow 

public access or unauthorized activities. 

Human impacts in undeveloped areas of 

MEVE are minimized by regulations that 

restrict visitor access to designated 

trails, roads, and campgrounds to 

protect cultural resources. While 

currently needed management actions 

are ongoing and management plans have 

been drafted, no plans, policies, or 

regulations have been signed and 

implemented for the specific purpose of 

monitoring and protecting A. schmolliae 

from cheatgrass invasion and recurrent 

fires. We anticipate that MEVE and the 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe will formalize 

their management plans within the near 

future. 

The existing suite of local, State, and 

Federal laws that we evaluated do not 

address the primary threat to Astragalus 

schmolliae of cheatgrass invasion 

following fire. Additionally, the existing 

plans rely on the resilience of the plants 

and their ability to resprout after 

impacts, which is insufficient to provide 

for their recovery post-fire. Therefore, 

we find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms for the species are 

inadequate and do not address the 

threats to the continued existence of the 

species. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Restricted Range 

The global range of Astragalus 

schmolliae is restricted to pinyonjuniper woodlands on about 1,619 ha 

(4,000 ac) on 3 adjacent mesas. It does 

not grow in grasslands below the mesas 

or in adjacent shrublands at higher 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

elevation on the mesas, nor has it been 

found in pinyon-juniper woodlands on 

nearby mesas. Such a restricted range 

makes the species vulnerable to habitat 

modification caused by wildfire, 

cheatgrass invasion, increased drought, 

and climate change, but is not 

considered a threat in itself. 

Herbicides 

Less than 10 percent of Astragalus 

schmolliae habitat on MEVE has been 

sprayed with herbicide to control 

identified high-density stands of 

Cirsium canadense. These herbicide 

applications have been performed 

carefully to minimize overspray that 

might land on native species (Nelligan 

2010, p. 2). We are not aware of any use 

of herbicides on the tribal land habitat. 

Because we have no information 

indicating that herbicide use has 

affected A. schmolliae, we do not 

consider herbicide use to be a threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Summary of Factor E 

The small range of Astragalus 

schmolliae makes it vulnerable to 

existing and future threats, but does not 

constitute a threat in itself. Herbicide is 

used within the habitat, but is not 

known to affect the species. We are not 

aware of any other natural or manmade 

factors affecting the species’ continued 

existence that present a current or 

potential threat to A. schmolliae. 

Therefore, we do not consider other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

continued existence of the species to be 

a threat now or within the foreseeable 

future. 

General Threats Summary 

Table 8 below provides an overview 

of the threats to Astragalus schmolliae. 

Of these threats, we consider 

degradation of habitat by fire followed 

by cheatgrass invasion and subsequent 

increase in fire frequency to be the most 

significant threats (Table 8). Cheatgrass 

is likely to increase given its rapid 

spread and persistence in habitat 

disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels 

management and development of 

infrastructure, and the inability of land 

managers to control it on a landscape 

scale. Threats to A. schmolliae and its 

habitat from nonnative plant invasion 

following wildfires and fire and fuels 

management currently affect about 53 

percent (431 ha (1,066 ac)) of the 

species’ range on MEVE and 26 percent 

(212 ha (524 ac)) on the Tribal Park for 

a total of 40 percent of the species entire 

known range (Table 8). Fires, fire break 

clearings, and drought are considered 

moderate threats to A. schmolliae. 

Inadequate regulations are a low-level 

threat to the species. Other impacts not 

considered threats include post-fire 

native grass seeding, thistle invasion, 

infrastructure development, trampling, 

herbivory, weed treatments, and 

pollinator availability. 

TABLE 8—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING Astragalus schmolliae 

Listing 

factor 

Threat or 

impact 

Scope of threat or 

impact Intensity Exposure (%) Likelihood of exposure 

Species’ 

response 

Foreseeable 

future Overall threat 

A ............... Nonnative 

Invasive 

Cheatgrass.

Moderate .............. High ...................... 40 ................... High ...................... Increased fire 

frequency.

Increasing with 

rapid increase possible.

High. 

A ............... Wildfires ......... Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 21 ................... High ...................... Strong regrowth, unknown net 

reproduction, 

Increased 

cheatgrass & 

fire frequency.

More frequent Moderate. 

A ............... Prescribed 

burns completed + proposed.

Low ....................... Moderate .............. 0.37 + 0.34 ..... High ...................... Strong regrowth, unknown net 

reproduction, 

Increased 

cheatgrass & 

fire frequency.

Continue ......... Moderate. 

A ............... Fire break 

clearing 

completed + 

proposed.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 18 + 0.25 ........ High ...................... Outcompeted 

by grasses, 

decline of 

growth, increased 

cheatgrass.

Continue ......... Moderate. 

A ............... Nonnative 

Invasive thistles.

Low ....................... Moderate .............. 5 ..................... High ...................... Competition .... Decline ........... None. 

A ............... Periodic 

Drought.

Moderate .............. Moderate .............. 100 ................. Moderate .............. Plants fail to 

sprout, or 

seedlings 

dry up. Increased 

cheatgrass & 

fire frequency.

Unpredictable 

but likely to 

increase.

Moderate. 

A ............... Climate 

Change.

Moderate? ............ Moderate? ............ 100 ................. Moderate .............. Increased fire 

frequency.

Climate models predict 

40-year 

changes.

Moderate? 

A ............... Infrastructure 

Development.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 2.3 .................. Moderate .............. Loss of habitat, 

loss of 

plants.

Small increase None. 

A ............... Trampling ....... Low ....................... Low ....................... 1 ..................... Moderate .............. Loss of plants Small increase None. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78547 

TABLE 8—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING ASTRAGALUS SCHMOLLIAE—Continued 

Listing 

factor 

Threat or 

impact 

Scope of threat or 

impact Intensity Exposure (%) Likelihood of exposure 

Species’ 

response 

Foreseeable 

future Overall threat 

A ............... Native Grass 

Seeding 

Post-fire.

Moderate .............. Low ....................... 21 ................... High ...................... Competition .... Continue ......... None. 

B ............... None ............... ............................... ............................... 0 ..................... ............................... ........................ Not likely to 

change.

None. 

C ............... Herbivory ........ Low ....................... Low ....................... ? ..................... Low ....................... Plants resprout, seedlings destroyed.Likely to continue & fluctuate with 

herbivore 

population.

None. 

C ............... Chemical & 

Mechanical 

Weed Treatment.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 7 ..................... Moderate .............. Some mortality, strong 

regrowth by 

survivors.

Continue ......... None. 

D ............... National Park 

Laws & Regulations.

Moderate .............. Low ....................... 50 ................... Moderate .............. No management plan 

for species.

Stronger protection.Low. 

D ............... Tribal Laws & 

Regulations.

Moderate .............. Low ....................... 50 ................... Moderate .............. No management or 

monitoring.

Increase management actions.Low. 

E ............... Limited Range High ...................... Low ....................... 100 ................. High ...................... No range expansion.Increased effect with 

drought & 

climate 

change.

None. 

E ............... Pollinator 

Availability.

Low ....................... Low ....................... 22 ................... Low ....................... Decreased 

seed production.

Increase with 

fire.

None. 

Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting 

its continued existence. 

? indicates significant uncertainty. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

magnitude of threats, and the level of 

taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning 

priority in descending order to 

monotypic genera (genus with one 

species), full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we have assigned 

Astragalus schmolliae a Listing Priority 

Number (LPN) of 8, based on our 

finding that the species faces threats 

that are of moderate magnitude and are 

imminent. These threats include the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification or curtailment of its 

habitat and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. These threats 

are ongoing and, in some cases (such as 

nonnative species), are considered 

irreversible because large-scale 

invasions cannot be recovered to a 

native functioning ecosystem. Our 

rationale for assigning A. schmolliae an 

LPN of 8 is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s guidelines, the 

magnitude of threat is the first criterion 

we look at when establishing a listing 

priority. The guidance indicates that 

species with the highest magnitude of 

threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

threats that Astragalus schmolliae faces 

to be moderate in magnitude because 

the major threats (weed invasion 

facilitated by fire, management of fire 

and fuels management, and drought, 

plus inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms), while serious and 

occurring rangewide, do not collectively 

rise to the level of high magnitude. For 

example, the last known populations are 

not about to be completely lost due to 

the effects of wildfires. 

The magnitude of threat Factor A is 

considered moderate because about 40 

percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat 

has been modified by fires and firerelated activities, followed by 

unprecedented invasion by cheatgrass, 

facilitated by drought. Factor A is 

shown to have occurred in the past, and 

it is clearly a threat today and into the 

future. These impacts affect the 

competitive ability and reproductive 

success of A. schmolliae individuals, 

and increase the likelihood of more 

frequent fire intervals in the future. 

The magnitude of threat Factor D is 

considered low. While no plans, 

policies, or regulations have been signed 

and implemented for the specific 

purpose of monitoring and protecting 

Astragalus schmolliae from cheatgrass 

invasion and recurrent fires, we 

anticipate that MEVE and the Ute 

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 warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

the Act; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90-day 

finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

some FYs since 2006, we have been able 

to use some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In other FYs, while 

we were unable to use any of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations, we did use some 

of this money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations so that the proposed 

listing determination and proposed 

critical habitat designation could be 

combined into one rule, thereby being 

more efficient in our work. In FY 2011 

we anticipate that we will be able to use 

some of the critical habitat subcap funds 

to fund proposed listing determinations. 

We make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. Through the 

listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, 

and the amount of funds needed to 

address court-mandated critical habitat 

designations, Congress and the courts 

have in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap, other than those 

needed to address court-mandated 

critical habitat for already listed species, 

set the limits on our determinations of 

preclusion and expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when 

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). Therefore, a proposed 

listing is precluded if pending proposals 

with higher priority will require 

expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and 

expeditious progress is the amount of 

work that can be achieved with 

$10,471,000. Since court orders 

requiring critical habitat work will not 

require use of all of the funds within the 

critical habitat subcap, we used 

$1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap 

funds in order to work on as many of 

our required petition findings and 

listing determinations as possible. This 

brings the total amount of funds we had 

for listing actions in FY 2010 to 

$11,585,417. 

The $11,585,417 was used to fund 

work in the following categories: 

Compliance with court orders and 

court-approved settlement agreements 

requiring that petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. For FY 2011, on 

September 29, 2010, Congress passed a 

continuing resolution which provides 

funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. 

Until Congress appropriates funds for 

FY 2011, we will fund listing work 

based on the FY 2010 amount. In 2009, 

the responsibility for listing foreign 

species under the Act was transferred 

from the Division of Scientific 

Authority, International Affairs 

Program, to the Endangered Species 

Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, 

we use a portion of our funding to work 

on the actions described above as they 

apply to listing actions for foreign 

species. This has the potential to further 

reduce funding available for domestic 

listing actions. Although there are 

currently no foreign species issues 

included in our high-priority listing 

actions at this time, many actions have 

statutory or court-approved settlement 

deadlines, thus increasing their priority. 

The budget allocations for each specific 

listing action are identified in the 

Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part 

of our administrative record). 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidance for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, 

we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 

to 12, depending on the magnitude of 

threats (high or moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species (in order of priority: 

Monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). 

Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked 

the candidate species with an LPN of 2 

by using the following extinction-risk 

type criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

We assigned both Astragalus 

microcymbus and A. schmolliae an LPN 

of 8. For A. microcymbus, this is based 

on our finding that the species faces 

immediate and moderate magnitude 

threats from the present or threatened 

destruction, modification or curtailment 

of its habitat; predation; the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

other natural or man-made factors 

affecting its continued existence. In the 

case of A. schmolliae, this is based on 

our finding that the species faces 

immediate and moderate magnitude 

threats from the present or threatened 

destruction, modification or curtailment 

of its habitat and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. These 

threats are ongoing and, in some cases 

(e.g., nonnative species), considered 

irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, 

a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent moderatemagnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 

7, 8, or 9 depending on its taxonomic 

status. Because both A. microcymbus 

and A. schmolliae are species, we 

assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore, 

work on a proposed listing 

determination for A. microcymbus and 

A. schmolliae is precluded by work on 

higher priority candidate species (i.e., 

species with LPN of 7); listing actions 

with absolute statutory, court ordered, 

or court-approved deadlines; and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from previous FYs. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. During FY 2010, we have 

completed two proposed delisting rules 

and two final delisting rules.) Given the 

limited resources available for listing, 

we find that we made expeditious 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program and are making expeditious 

progress in FY 2011. This progress 

included preparing and publishing the 

following determinations: 

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/08/2009 .................... Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot 

Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species 

Throughout Its Range.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 74 FR 52013–52064 

10/27/2009 .................... 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the 

American Dipper in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.74 FR 55177–55180 

10/28/2009 .................... Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus 

arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River System.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for 

Listing Decision.

74 FR 55524–55525 

11/03/2009 .................... Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte 

Goshawk Under the Endangered Species 

Act: Proposed rule.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......................... 74 FR 56757–56770 

11/03/2009 .................... Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as 

Threatened Throughout Its Range with 

Special Rule.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......................... 74 FR 56770–56791 

11/23/2009 .................... Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus minimus).

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for 

Listing Decision.

74 FR 61100–61102 

12/03/2009 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or 

Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.74 FR 63343–63366 

12/03/2009 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 63337–63343 

12/15/2009 .................... 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine 

Species of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 66260–66271 

12/16/2009 .................... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

475 Species in the Southwestern United 

States as Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial and Substantial.74 FR 66865–66905 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78551 

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

12/17/2009 .................... 12-month Finding on a Petition To Change 

the Final Listing of the Distinct Population 

Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include 

New Mexico.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.74 FR 66937–66950 

1/05/2010 ...................... Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their 

Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 605–649 

1/05/2010 ...................... Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 286–310 

1/05/2010 ...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s 

Petrel.

Proposed rule, withdrawal .............................. 75 FR 310–316 

1/05/2010 ...................... Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and 

Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened 

Throughout Their Ranges.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 75 FR 235–250 

1/20/2010 ...................... Initiation of Status Review for Agave 

eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for 

Listing Decision.

75 FR 3190–3191 

2/09/2010 ...................... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the 

American Pika as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 6437–6471 

2/25/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald 

Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 8601–8621 

2/25/2010 ...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia River 

Distinct Population Segment of Coastal 

Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) 

as Threatened.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List .............. 75 FR 8621–8644 

3/18/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry 

Cave salamander as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 13068–13071 

3/23/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the 

Southern Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria 

jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 13717–13720 

3/23/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the 

Striped Newt as Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 13720–13726 

3/23/2010 ...................... 12-month Findings for Petitions to List the 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 13910–14014 

3/31/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis 

occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 16050–16065 

4/5/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s 

Hairstreak Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 17062–17070 

4/6/2010 ........................ 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River, 

Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 17352–17363 

4/6/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a 

Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a Mayfly 

(Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 17363–17367 

4/7/2010 ........................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify 

the Delta Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 17667–17680 

4/13/2010 ...................... Determination of Endangered Status for 48 

Species on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 18959–19165 

4/15/2010 ...................... Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United 

States.

Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision.75 FR 19591–19592 

4/15/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered 

or Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 19592–19607 

4/16/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct 

Population Segment of the Fisher in Its 

United States Northern Rocky Mountain 

Range as Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 19925–19935 

4/20/2010 ...................... Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento 

splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus).

Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision.75 FR 20547–20548 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

4/26/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 21568–21571 

4/27/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia 

susanae) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 22012–22025 

4/27/2010 ...................... 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Endangered with 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 22063–22070 

5/4/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes 

Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 23654–23663 

6/1/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 30313–30318 

6/1/2010 ........................ 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the 

White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or 

Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 30338–30363 

6/9/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van 

Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Endangered 

or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 32728–32734 

6/16/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List 

Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced 

Bees as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 34077–34088 

6/22/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Least Chub as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 35398–35424 

6/23/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 35746–35751 

6/23/2010 ...................... Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered Throughout Its 

Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered Proposed Listing Threatened.75 FR 35721–35746 

6/24/2010 ...................... Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly 

and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 35990–36012 

6/24/2010 ...................... Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, 

Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and 

Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout 

Their Ranges.

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 36035–36057 

6/29/2010 ...................... Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened .... Reinstatement of Proposed Listing Threatened.75 FR 37353–37358 

7/20/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus 

albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered 

or Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 42033–42040 

7/20/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Amargosa Toad as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 42040–42054 

7/20/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant 

Palouse Earthworm (Driloleirus 

americanus) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 42059–42066 

7/27/2010 ...................... Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted 

Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its 

Range; Final Rule.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 43844–43853 

7/27/2010 ...................... Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch 

(Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered 

Throughout Its Range.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 43853–43864 

8/3/2010 ........................ Determination of Threatened Status for Five 

Penguin Species.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 75 FR 45497–45527 

8/4/2010 ........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the 

Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered 

Subspecies With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 46894–46898 

8/10/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Arctostaphylos franciscana as Endangered 

with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 48294–48298 

8/17/2010 ...................... Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin 

America and the Caribbean as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 50813–50842 

8/17/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian 

Head Mountainsnail as Endangered or 

Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 50739–50742 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78553 

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

8/24/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or 

Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 51969–51974 

9/1/2010 ........................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

White-Sided Jackrabbit as Threatened or 

Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 53615–53629 

9/8/2010 ........................ Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender 

Salamander as Endangered.

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 54561–54579 

9/8/2010 ........................ Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper 

Missouri River Distinct Population Segment 

of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or 

Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 54707–54753 

9/9/2010 ........................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 

neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 54822–54845 

9/15/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or Threatened Throughout Its Range.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 56028–56050 

9/22/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Agave 

eggersiana (no common name) as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 57720–57734 

9/28/2010 ...................... Determination of Endangered Status for the 

African Penguin.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 59645–59656 

9/28/2010 ...................... Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse 

as a Threatened or Endangered Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 59803–59863 

9/30/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 60515–60561 

10/6/2010 ...................... Endangered Status for the Altamaha 

Spinymussel and Designation of Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 61664–61690 

10/7/2010 ...................... 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the 

Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or 

Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 62070–62095 

10/28/2010 .................... Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ........ 75 FR 66481–66552 

11/2/2010 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay 

Springs Salamander as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 67341–67343 

11/2/2010 ...................... Determination of Endangered Status for the 

Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted 

Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 75 FR 67511–67550 

11/2/2010 ...................... Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered.Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 75 FR 67551–67583 

11/4/2010 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as 

Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 67925–67944 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but 

have not yet been completed to date. 

These actions are listed below. Actions 

in the top section of the table are being 

conducted under a deadline set by a 

court. Actions in the middle section of 

the table are being conducted to meet 

statutory timelines, that is, timelines 

required under the Act. Actions in the 

bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78554 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

6 Birds from Peru ...................................................................................... 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—Campbell Plateau population ................ Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ............................................. Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk ........................................................................ Final listing determination. 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek 

darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Ozark hellbender 4 ..................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 ............................................................................ Final listing determination. 

3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), 

Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica 

(DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ......................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ........ Final listing determination. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ........................... Final listing determination. 

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 1 ................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

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 (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, 

Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium 

ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species 

petition.

12-month petition finding. 

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 

species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus 

proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 

206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) .......................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ........................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 .................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population ........................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ............. 12-month petition finding. 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 .................. 12-month petition finding. 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema 

galbina) (from 475 species petition).

12-month petition finding. 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species 

petition).

12-month petition finding. 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, 

Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition).

12-month petition finding. 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ............... 12-month petition finding. 

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 Range 1 .............................................. 12-month petition finding. 

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 var. ozarkensis) 4 ............................ 12-month petition finding. 

HI yellow-faced bees ................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Giant Palouse earthworm ......................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Whitebark pine .......................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78555 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ............................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Ashy storm-petrel 5 .................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ........ 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 ...................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 .................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ..................... 90-day petition finding. 

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 butterfly ................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

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 & Idaho snowfly) 4 ............................ 90-day petition finding. 

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 (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 .... 90-day petition finding. 

I’iwi 5 .......................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

High-Priority Listing Actions 

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 

2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9).

Proposed listing. 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN 

= 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard) 4 (LPN = 2) ............. Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis (LPN = 2)).

Proposed listing. 

New Mexico springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ................ Proposed listing. 

2 mussels 2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4)) ............... Proposed listing. 

8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round 

ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern 

sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 

5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 4 ............................................................. Proposed listing. 

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ......................................................................... Proposed listing. 

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 

9)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

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 salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.Proposed listing. 

5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y 

springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom 

Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN 

= 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 .................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (LPN = 2) 5 .................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 3 ............................................................. Proposed listing. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78556 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 

3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with 

LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

Oregon spotted frog (LPN = 2) 5 ............................................................... Proposed listing. 

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside 

pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5.

Proposed listing. 

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................ Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2Although 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. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2