ESA-Listed Species in AZ: Status and Needs

Notes from Alexandra Permar's research into the current status and needs of ESA listed species in AZ.

Candidates Species for Listing

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743

 

Species with T/E Listing Status and Active Recovery Plans

Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) (Threatened, G2): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=102217 | https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.129296/Spiranthes_diluvialis

Welsh's milkweed (Asclepias welshii) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8400 |

https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=3793#:~:text=Plant%3A%20perennial%20herb%3B%20stems%20erect,base%2C%20obtuse%20to%20mostly%20rounded%2D

Opportunity to survey for this species in northern AZ 

Recovery plan implementation progress is only about half done (maybe less than half).

Original delisting date (goal): 2010.

Needed: species surveys (in known and unknown locales in northern AZ) as well as communication campaigns to increase awareness and appreciation for the species.

Revised recovery documents (two five-year reviews) published in 2015 and 2021 indicate USFWS is collaborating with researchers at NAU and has hired private botanists to survey for this species in recent years. The botanists have conducted surveys and some research (e.g., controlled breeding in potted soils vs. native sandy soil type) which the USFWS is using. However, these two five-year plans (especially the 2015 one) reiterate the continuing need for many recovery activities including "… repetitive, standardized, rigorous surveys …."

Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes delitescens) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8098 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=2715

Researchers with Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix are researching this species (and using research dogs to find the plants--AZNPS Flagstaff chapter lecture on 09.19.2023)

San Francisco Peaks ragwort (Packera franciscana) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1721 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=567

USFS Rocky Mtn Research Sta. is researching the species (population, effects of climate change). They have research transects in the San Francisco peaks where they perturb and observe populations of P. fransciscana through time.

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7965

There is ample work underway to protect this species (USFWS, NAU, AZGFD).

This species depends on mesic habitats in- and around wetlands which are rare in AZ.

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/B074

This species has been listed for a while and receives significant attention.

Sonoran tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium stebbinsi) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/D01H | https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2096 | https://awcs.azgfd.com/species/amphibians/ambystoma-mavortium-stebbinsi | https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103735/Ambystoma_mavortium_stebbinsi

Need: Analyze data for AZGFD (population monitoring surveys conducted 2012-14) and USFWS (population monitoring protocol implemented 4x annually from 2004-13). It seems there has not been population monitoring conducted since 2014 in AZ. ??

Need: Conduct salamander surveys in Sonora, MX.

Recovery plan update conveys that USFWS et al. have reviewed the 10-year survey data and used it to understand the current status of the species. On the whole, the species is better off than I would've guessed; continuing concerns include bullfrogs, non-native predatory fish/crayfish, drought, reliance on cattle tanks for habitat, and climate change. Interestingly, periodic/episodic drought which dries some of the ponds/cattle tanks where the salamanders reside is actually good for the salamanders b/c predatory fish/crayfish/bullfrogs don't survive dry periods well. As a species, the salamanders depend on cattle tanks for habitat in AZ.

Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/D02F

This species has been listed for a while and receives significant attention.

Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia (=Cowania) subintegra) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/866

Botanists have already surveyed for this species and found all there is to find.

Masked bobwhite (quail) (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3484

This species is controlled through controlled active breeding programs and introductions at the Buenos Aires NWR; it seems most of the program isn't working that well. The controlled reproduction includes "foster parenting" of chicks. (When researchers introduce a masked-bobwhite-quail chick into BA NWR, they also introduce an adult male of another quail species with the chick; the male is supposed to foster the chick.) This species will probably go extinct.

Nichol's Turk's head cactus (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5343

This species has already received ample attention; the recovery plan may resolve in this decade.

Bartram's stonecrop (Graptopetalum bartramii) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8382 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=3117&clid=3130

Difficult to survey for this species b/c it grows in "steep canyons" near water.

Jones Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3336 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxauthid=1&taxon=3703&clid=2670#:~:text=Plant%3A%20perennial%20herb%2C%201%2D,of%20follicles%205%2D10%20cm

This is a newly listed species (Aug 2021); it requires ample attention. Need habitat assessments and plant surveys, possibly also pollinator studies. However, most of this species' distribution is in Utah.

Kearney's blue-star (Amsonia kearneyana) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7485 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=1408#:~:text=Plant%3A%20perennial%20herb%3B%204%2D,broadest%20below%20the%20apex%2C%20slightly

Need census of species subsites; monitoring of species individuals and their habitat; education/outreach re: species conservation and recovery; surveys for new individuals and subsites.

This species used to be synonymous with A. palmeri which we found near Hillside, AZ in April, 2023 (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/158329553).

Access to state- and tribal lands is restricted and inhibits botanical surveying efforts.

It is challenging to find the species in its native habitat; it grows in steep canyons and on cliffsides with slopes >= 20 degrees.

The survey sites for this species are paired with a nearby experimental site on BLM land where researchers are conducting controlled introductions of this species and observing their survival rates.

Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) (Endangered): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4919 | https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=3428

This species has been listed for a while and probably receives enough attention.

Species with T/E listing but without active recovery plans

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Threatened): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/B06R

Many people are researching this species. However, survey data from the past 15-20 years for the Upper Verde region is missing from the Audubon Southwest AZ IBA Database. Need to coordinate with USFWS and Audubon SW to track down the data and analyze it. 

Need a 10(a)1(A) scientific research permit with the USFWS.

Description of Upper Verde River habitat (Yavapai County, AZ) is in USFWS Critical Habitat document (FR Vol. 86, No. 75, 04.21.2021) on pages 20855, 20881.

AZGFD management decisions (made for fish) in the Upper Verde watershed are--according to the USFWS--proving relatively sufficient to maintain suitable habitat for the YBCU. Thus, the USFWS has decided to not declare critical habitat for the cuckoo in the Upper Verde River watershed (AZGFD asked USFWS to not declare critical habitat here).

References cited in the USFWS Federal Register critical habitat document indicate that AZGFD, USFWS, and partners have analyzed recent data from the Upper Verde River watershed and find the cuckoo numbers (occupancy, breeding, migration) to be satisfactory. However, I searched for these original reference documents and was unable to find any of them.

Upcoming Endangered Species Listing Decisions in Arizona 2022-2027

I found a 5-year workplan on the USFWS site and made a list of all of the AZ species that USFWS will make listing determinations for. 

Its pretty interesting to look at what’s coming up.  Lots of talussnails!  But after the Sonoran desert tortoise (which they decided not to list), I think the next big one is the Monarch butterfly.  

Also interesting that there’s no bumble bee species on this list, as I know they’ve been petitioned.  Of course, this could all change as new species are added to the candidate list and priorities change...

 

FY22

Sonoran desert tortoise

-widely distributed in AZ deserts

- listing decision spring 2022: not warranted

 

Cactus ferrugous pygmy owl 

-by end of calendar year

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/237012-Glaucidium-brasilianum-cactorum

https://www.audubon.org/news/this-tiny-desert-raptor-could-soon-regain-federal-protection

 

roundtail chub

 

gray wolf (western populations)

 

 

FY23

Joshua tree 

 

Quitobaquito tryonia

 

 

FY24

Monarch butterfly

-widely distributed in AZ

A listing proposal is anticipated by November 2023, with a final listing decision by end of Federal FY2024 (September 2024). 

 

Las Vegas bearpoppy Arctomecon californica

 

Pinaleno talussnail Sonorella grahamensis

San Xavier talussnail Sonorella eremita

 

 

FY25

Ferris's copper butterfly Lycaena ferrisi

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1360320-Tharsalea-rubidus-ferrisi

ASNF southwest of Springerville

 

Chisos coral-root Hexalectris revoluta

Sky island mountains

 

Threecorner milkvetch  Astragalus geyeri var. triquetrus

 

Grand Wash springsnail Pyrgulopsis bacchus

Kingman springsnail Pyrgulopsis conica

 

 

FY26

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus microscaphus

- widely distributed in AZ

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/64982-Anaxyrus-microscaphus

 

Navajo bladderpod Lesquerella navajoensis

- habitat on Navajo Nation

 

Yuman Desert fringe-toed lizard Uma rufopunctata

 

Mojave poppy bee    Perdita meconis 

 

Bylas springsnail Pyrgulopsis arizonae

Gila tryonia Tryonia gilae

Huachuca woodlandsnail Ashmunella levettei

 

Squaw Park talussnail Maricopella allynsmithi

-populations are on city or county parks in the Phoenix metro area https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.114155/Maricopella_allynsmithi

 

Verde Rim springsnail Pyrgulopsis glandulosa

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/111425-Pyrgulopsis-glandulosa

 

 

FY27

Morton's wild buckwheat  Eriogonum mortonianum

 

Pipe Springs cryptantha    Cryptantha semiglabra

 

Source: https://www.fws.gov/media/national-listing-workplan-fiscal-years-2022-2027

More USFWS lists:  https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species-reports

Mitigation Banking Could Transform the Endangered Species Act

 The Clean Water Act (CWA) --despite its ambiguities-- has the important provision of acre-for-acre wetland mitigation. In other words, the CWA ensures No Net Loss of protected wetlands.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) --despite controversies over Critical Habitat-- has no automatic provision of no net loss of protected species habitats. Instead, it relies on bespoke mitigations on a project-by-project basis. Most projects are approved with incompletely mitigated impacts to species and their habitats. The result is continual loss of habitat.

Current proposed changes to habitat mitigation could help make ESA more like CWA, moving the ESA toward No Net Loss of habitat. The result would be improved regulatory certainty for projects, mitigation banking opportunities for conservation investors, and better outcomes for listed species.

Environmental Policy Innovation Center's Becca Madsen has more excellent & detailed analysis.

Habitat in the Endangered Species Act

Response to Jake Li's response to FWS revised definition of "habitat".

A couple of points about critical habitat.  First, it is often not stated by those who understand the ESA, and often misunderstood by those who do not, that critical habitat designations only have regulatory force on federal lands or for projects that involve a federal nexus (such that a federal agency would consult with FWS). While this may seem like nitpicking, it is crucial to understand the regulatory impact of the change in definition, as many federal agencies do not rely exclusively on critical habitat designations but instead consult with FWS based on the SME of their biologists whenever a project may impact a listed species.  

For private land, where many people are most worried about critical habitat, any changes in the areas designated would have little to no impact due to the fact that critical habitat has little to no impact on private land.

Second, it is interesting to consider how this change in the definition of habitat would affect monarchs. I think it would not affect monarch habitat due to the inclusion of "ephemeral and seasonal habitat" in the definition.  Even if monarchs only inhabit an area for a few months of the year, that area could still be designated critical habitat. 

You write that the 7a habitat protection is redundant if an area is occupied (and therefore protected by the jeopardy prohibition).  But monarchs (and many other species) only seasonally occupy parts of their critical habitat, so the 7a protection will continue to be relevant in those cases. 

---

Thoughts about possible monarch listing:

Planting milkweed habitat

Some people are afraid of creating milkweed habitat because apparently they think they would never be able to destroy or modify this habitat.  I find this unlikely.  More likely is that they would be restricted from destroying or modifying the habitat while monarch caterpillars are present.  During winter months, they could destroy this habitat without adversely affecting individual monarchs.  Habitat protection in the ESA is often misunderstood on this point.

CCAA

I assume that monarchs will be listed.  Even so, there are many reasons for not joining CCAA, but I will focus on reasons that FWS enforcement will not be detrimental to business operations at companies with well-developed IVM programs.

A mature IVM program already has the goal to move away from mowing/mastication toward spot treatment of incompatibles with herbicide.  Although there will need to be mowing in some areas, the reason for mowing is that the areas are overgrown with woody vegetation. Therefore these areas would not support monarch milkweed habitat.

There may be incidental work in monarch milkweed habitat, but most of this work would not impact monarch breeding. For example tree cutting. I consider it unlikely the FWS would broadly restrict all activities in monarch milkweed habitats, due to the vast and unenforceable impact this would have on ordinary activities across the country.

I believe FWS will restrict some activities that would impact monarch milkweed habitat, during the monarch breeding season, especially ground-disturbing activities.  Biological opinions for species impacted by ground disturbing work implement mitigation measures that include timing restrictions and crew trainings.  FWS has provided incidental take statements based on these mitigation measures and reporting requirements.  I expect a similar scenario when monarch are listed. 

Proposed Changes to Regulations Implementing the Endangered Species Act

Reference: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/regulation-revisions.html



Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat

Economic Impacts: "the Services will continue to make determinations based solely on biological considerations. However, there may be circumstances where referencing economic, or other impacts may be informative to the public"

Foreseeable Future: use definition set forth in 2009, where foreseeable "extends only so far into the future as theServices can reasonably determine that the conditions potentially posing a danger of extinction ... are probable."

Delisting species: clarifies that the standard for listing or delisting is the same. Important because FWS does not have to "demonstrate that all of the recovery plan criteria had been met before" delisting. Because: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act provides the Secretary `shall' consider the five statutory factors when determining whether a species is endangered, and section 4(c) makes clear that a decision to delist `shall be made in accordance' with the same five factors.”

Not Prudent Determinations: FWS may decide not to designate critical habitat when it is “not prudent”. Currently this can only occur under two circumstances, but the change would allow the Service more discretion. "We anticipate that not-prudent determinations would continue to be rare." This is an effort to avoid lawsuits.

Designating Unoccupied Areas: clarify that the service can do so "When a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied would (1) be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species, or (2) result in less-efficient conservation for the species." Further, "In order for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species....Because the only regulatory effect of a designation of critical habitat is the requirement that federal agencies avoid authorizing, funding, or undertaking actions that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, the likelihood that an area will contribute to conservation is, in most cases, greater for public lands and lands for which such federal actions can be reasonably anticipated than for other types of land."



Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants

(This proposed revision has received the most comments on regulations.gov)

Summary: for newly listed species, there would be no legal penalty for “take” of threatened species. Section 7 consultation would still be required. This change would reduce the potential legal liability of APS, while not lessoning our consultation requirements.

“Currently, there are species-specific protective regulations for threatened wildlife in subpart D of part 17, but the Service has not adopted any species-specific protective regulations for plants. The proposed regulations would not affect the consultation obligations of Federal agencies pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Species listed or reclassified as a threatened species after the effective date of this rule would have protective regulations only if the Service promulgates a species-specific rule (also referred to as a special rule).”

This proposed change brings the USFWS regulations in line with the NMFS.


Section 7 Interagency Cooperation

“Nothing in these proposed revisions to the regulations is intended to require that any previous consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act be reevaluated….The Services anticipate that the proposed changes, if finalized, will improve and clarify interagency consultation, and make it more efficient and consistent, without compromising conservation of listed species.”

Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat: This is a determination that is similar to a determination of Jeopardy for the species as a whole. For clarity, USFWS proposes adding the phrase “as a whole” to the current definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification: “`Destruction or adverse modification' means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the conservation value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species.”

The intent is that, “while an action may result in adverse effects to critical habitat within the action area, those effects may not necessarily rise to the level of destruction or adverse modification to the designated critical habitat. In adding the phrase “as a whole” to the proposed revised definition, we intend to clearly indicate that the final destruction or adverse modification determination is made at the scale of the entire critical habitat designation…..Just as the determination of jeopardy under section 7(a)(2) of the Act is made at the scale of the entire listed entity, a determination of destruction or adverse modification is made at the scale of the entire critical habitat designation.”

In each biological opinion, the determination regarding destruction or adverse modification is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the species in light of the overall status of the species, the baseline conditions within the action area and any cumulative effects occurring within the action area.

Effects of the Action: “Confusion regarding application of terms has resulted in time being spent determining how to categorize an effect, rather than simply determining what the effects are regardless of category…. We collapsed the various concepts of direct and indirect effects, and the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, into the new definition that the effects of the action include all effects caused by the proposed action.”

“The revised definition notes that these effects include “the effects of other activities that are caused by the proposed action.” It includes a distinction between the word “action” which refers to the action proposed to be authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by the Federal agency and brought in for consultation with the Services, and “activity” or “activities,” which refer to those activities that are caused by the proposed action but are not included in the proposed action. Under the current definition, these activities would have been considered under either “indirect effects” or “interrelated” or “interdependent” activities. An effect or activity is caused by the proposed action when two tests are satisfied: First, the effect or activity would not occur but for the proposed action, and second, the effect or activity is reasonably certain to occur. “

“Under the first of these two tests, if an effect or activity would occur regardless of whether the proposed action goes forward, then that effect or activity would not satisfy the “but for” test and would not be considered an effect of the action.”

“As a practical matter, application of the “reasonable certainty” standard is done in the following sequential manner in light of the best available scientific and commercial data to determine if incidental take is anticipated: (1) A determination is made regarding whether a listed species is present within the area affected by the proposed Federal action; (2) if so, then a determination is made regarding whether the listed species would be exposed to stressors caused by the proposed action (e.g., noise, light, ground disturbance); and (3) if so, a determination is made regarding whether the listed species' biological response to that exposure corresponds to the statutory and regulatory definitions of take (i.e., kill, wound, capture, harm, etc.). Applied in this way, the “reasonable certainty” standard does not require a guarantee that a take will result, rather, only that the Services establish a rational basis for a finding of take.”

Environmental Baseline: The Services propose a stand-alone definition for “environmental baseline” as referenced in the discussion above in the proposed revised definition for “effects of the action.” The definition for environmental baseline retains its current wording. Moving it to a stand-alone definition clarifies that the environmental baseline is a separate consideration that sets the stage for analyzing the effects of the proposed action on the listed species and critical habitat within the action area by providing the foundation upon which to build the analysis of the effects of the action under consultation.

“It has sometimes been challenging for the Services and Federal agencies to determine the appropriate baseline for those consultations involving ongoing agency actions. The complexities presented in these consultations include issues such as: What constitutes an “ongoing” action; if an ongoing action is changed, is the incremental change in the ongoing action the only focus of the consultation or is the entire action or some other subset reviewed; is the effects analysis different if the ongoing action has never been the subject of consultation as compared to if there is a current biological opinion for the ongoing action; if a change is made to an ongoing action that lessens, but does not eliminate, the harmful impact to listed species or critical habitat, is that by definition a “beneficial action”; and can a “beneficial action” ever jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Further, the Services request comments as to whether the following language would address these issues: “Environmental baseline is the state of the world absent the action under review and includes the past, present and ongoing impacts of all past and ongoing Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions in the action area which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Ongoing means impacts or actions that would continue in the absence of the action under review.””

Programmatic Consultation: “used to evaluate the effects of multiple actions anticipated within a particular geographic area; or to evaluate Federal agency programs that guide implementation of the agency's future actions by establishing standards, guidelines, or governing criteria to which future actions will adhere.”

Applicability: USFWS proposes to add language clarifying that consultation is not required when a proposed action will not negatively affect listed species or critical habitat in any real, or measurable, significant way; or that are beyond the jurisdictional control of the consulting agencies.

Biological Opinions: “USFWS proposes that the Service may adopt all or part of a Federal agency's initiation package or the Services' analyses and findings that are required to issue a permit under section 10(a) of the Act in its biological opinion. This provision would allow the Services to utilize portions of these documents in the development of our biological opinion to improve efficiency in the consultation process and reduce duplicative efforts. Adoption or incorporation by reference is typically done during consultations, and this provision codifies that approach.”

Expedited Consultation: “ Informal consultation has been an available optional process for 30 years and is most often utilized to address proposed actions that are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. In contrast, expedited consultations are a new process and likely involve proposed actions that would otherwise go through the regular formal consultation process and require an incidental take statement. This consultation process is proposed to provide an efficient means to complete formal consultation on projects ranging from those that have a minimal impact, to those projects with a potentially broad range of effects that are known and predictable, but that are unlikely to cause jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification. “

Reinitiation of Consultation: “We propose to clarify that the duty to reinitiate does not apply to an existing programmatic land management plan prepared pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) or the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). when a new species is listed or new critical habitat is designated. In contrast, specific on-the-ground actions that implement the plan are subject to their own section 7 consultations if those actions may affect listed species or critical habitat.”

Wetland, Stream, and Species Mitigation Banks

With the November 3, 2015 Presidential Memorandum "Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment," mitigation banking has been getting more press.

Back in 2008 the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule governing compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by Corps permits.  Each division of USACE has published Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines.

Mitigation banks are restoration and conservation sites that preserve, enhance, or create important ecological functions that may be impacted elsewhere.  For example, since 2008 wetland banks can invest in the for-profit creation of new wetlands; developers can purchase credits in the bank to mitigate any impacted wetlands in the same watershed as the proposed development.

There are now over 2000 mitigation banks in the U.S.

USACE  runs the RIBITS website, which is their Regulatory in-lieu fee and bank information tracking system.

This map from RIBITS shows the distribution of mitigation banks in the continental U.S.  Some USAE districts already have dozens to hundreds of banks in operation, whereas some, such as the Albuquerque USACE district, have none.

This figure, courtesy of Kevin Janni, shows the distribution of mitigation banks and HUC watersheds in Texas for the Fort Worth and Galveston USACE districts.  Each bank may only be used to offset development within the same watershed.  Due to differing application processes and timelines for different USACE district, some districts have many more banks than others.

Mitigation banks are evaluated based on the quality of the wetlands created, using rapid assessments such as NMRAM.

The 2016 Mitigation Banking Conference will be held in Texas, May 10-13.

Threatened and Endangered Species of the Williamette Valley Prairie Savannas

There are 6 listed species endemic to the ecoregion.

Fender's Blue butterfly (E) (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)
Willamette daisy (E) (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens)
Bradshaw's desert-parsley (E) (Lomatium bradshawii)
Kincaid's Lupine (T) (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii)
Nelson's checker-mallow (T) (Sidalcea nelsoniana)
Golden Paintbrush (T) (Castilleja levisecta) - extirpated from Williamette valley

Several other nonlisted species are also considered sensitive:

Taylor’s (whulge) checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha taylori
Pale larkspur, Delphinium leucophaeum
Willamette Valley larkspur, Delphinium oreganum
Peacock larkspur, Delphinium pavonaceum
Shaggy horkelia, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta
White-topped aster, Sericocarpus rigidus
Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass, Sisyrinchium hitchcockii

There are two major rare habitats in the Williamette valley responsible for the listed and sensitive species: upland prairies and wet prairies. Prairies are dependent on disturbance to prevent succession, and many have been either plowed under or allowed to develop into forests or shrublands.  A recovery plan extends throughout the Williamette valley, and south of Roseburg to the Douglas county line to include a third disjunct habitat in the Umpqua valley.  

The plant composition of upland prairies is dominated by bunchgrasses, including Festuca idahoensis, Danthonia californica, Elymus glaucus, Achnatherum lemmonii, and Koeleria macrantha.  The spaces between the bunchgrasses are typically covered by mosses, fruticose lichens, or native forbs. Showy, slow-growing perennial forbs include Eriophyllum lanatum, Potentilla gracilis, Fragaria virginiana, Sidalcea malviflora, and Symphotrichum (=Aster) hallii, and the bulbs Calochortus tolmiei and Dichelostemma congestum. Some fast-growing annual forbs, including various species of tarweed (Madia spp.) and Clarkia, are also prominent members   The main threat are vegetatively spreading non native grasses included Agrostis, Festuca, as well as Rubus (blackberry).

Wet praries are dominated by herbs. Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass),and tufted microhabitats. Non-native Agrostis and Cirsiums are threat.

San Diego T & E Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a new website to identify species of conservation concern.  This system is easy enough that anyone can search for and learn about the Threatened and Endangered species in their county.

 For example, here is the list for San Diego County, California:

Top Conservation Stories of 2014

Here are a few of the most important conservation stories from 2014:

--Gila River Proposed Diversion approved by ISC

--Mexican Gray Wolf critical habitat expanded to include most of NM and AZ south of I-40

Zone 1 is where Mexican wolves may be initially released or translocated.  Zone 2 is where Mexican wolves will be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy, and where Mexican wolves may be translocated.  Zone 3 is where neither initial releases nor translocations will occur, but Mexican wolves will be allowed to disperse into and occupy....where Mexican wolves will be more actively managed...to reduce conflict with the potentially affected public.  However, in AZ east of Highway 87 there will be a "phased approach" to managing wolf populations.

--U.S. Congress Omnibus spending bill approves the Resolution mine landswap in AZ, grazing lease terms expanded to 20 years, and Valles Caldera becomes newest National Park

--Drought in CA (7% snowpack) ... and NM.  (e.g. Heron Lake resevoir levels fall, fail to make San Juan-Chame deliveries to Rio Grande)

-- US EPA and NRCS try to regulate agriculture under CWA....and fail.  The problem of increasing toxic algae problem in Ohio lakes came to a head in 2014 when Cleveland had to turn off their city water intake from Lake Eerie due to a toxic algal bloom. The proposed rule would have allowed EPA to regulate "non-point source" water pollution from farms that did not have a NRCS-approved conservation practices in place.  But apparently the outcry was too much, and early in 2015 the rule was amended.  Note that the final rule, even though it no longer contained this provision, was still vehemently protested in 2015.

--  Gunnison Sage Grouse listed as "Threatened" under the ESA, Colorado appeals.

-- Colorado River Pulse....mostly just grows more tamarisk.

--  Pleistocene megafauna extinction due to meteor impact, new study finds.  

-- Wilderness turns 50 years old

-- New "stacked trait" GMO potatoes and soybeans approved in the U.S.

And a random tidbit:  rabbits eat more forage in utah than bison...leading ranchers to question the state's continued bounty for coyote skins.

"Fewer than 5,000 remain"

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the Gunnison Sage Grouse as "Threatened" under the Endangered Species, act, one step shy of being actually "Endangered".  The ESA specifically prohibits killing a species listed as Threatened or Endangered.

The outcry has been significant, to the point that the Colorado Governor (a Democrat) is preparing a lawsuit in opposition. (Durango Herald)

Only a few scattered subpopulations currently remain out of the historic vast swath of occupied habitat.  Source: WildEarth Guardians Species Fact Sheet

The largest population, in the Gunnisun Basin, appears to be stable and not at risk, but many of the subpopulations continue to shrink.  Source:  USFWS Fact Sheet.

A chart of the small subpopulations showing overall decline since the late 1990's.  Since 2011 there appears to be a promising increase.

However, because the Gunnison population has increased since the 1990's and makes up the largest share of the total population, the total population has increased since 1996.

Threatened and Endangered Species around Albuquerque, New Mexico

Threatened and Endangered Species from Bernalillo County, New Mexico:

Birds

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) USFWS T State S The owl inhabits canyon and forest habitats across a range that extends from southern Utah and Colorado, through Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas, to the mountains of central Mexico. They require mature, old-growth forests of white pine (Pinus strobus), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa); steep slopes and canyons with rocky cliffs for their habitat.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) USFWS E

State E The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands including lakes and reservoirs. Historically the southwestern willow flycatcher nested in native vegetation including willows (Salix sp.), seepwillow (Baccharis salicifolia), boxelder (Acer negundo), buttonbush (Cephalanthusoccidentalis), and cottonwood (Populus sp.). Following modern changes to riparian communities, this subspecies still nests in native vegetation, but also uses thickets dominated by non-native tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), or in mixed native non-native stands

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzuz americanus) USFWS T

State S Status applies only to western population beyond the Pecos River Drainage; breeds in riparian habitat and associated drainages; springs, developed wells, and earthen ponds supporting mesic vegetation; deciduous woodlands with cottonwoods and willows; dense understory foliage is important for nest site selection; nests in willow, mesquite, cottonwood, and hackberry; forages in similar riparian woodlands;

Fishes

Rio Grande Silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) USFWS E

State E The Rio Grande silvery minnow extirpated; historically Rio Grande and Pecos River systems and canals; reintroduced in Big Bend area; pools and backwaters of medium to large streams with low or moderate gradient in mud, sand, or gravel bottom; ingests mud and bottom ooze for algae and other organic matter; probably spawns on silt substrates of quiet coves.

Mammals

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) USFWS E

State E

The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (jumping mouse) is endemic to New Mexico, Arizona, and a small area of southern Colorado (Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501-502; Jones 1999, p. 1). The jumping mouse appears to only utilize two riparian community types: 1) persistent emergent herbaceous wetlands (i.e., beaked sedge and reed canarygrass alliances); and 2) scrub-shrub wetlands (i.e., riparian areas along perennial streams that are composed of willows and alders) (Frey 2005, p. 53).

Other Special-Status Species in Bernalillo County, New Mexico:

Invertebrates

Obsolete Viceroy Butterfly (Limenitis archippus obsoleta)                       USFWS SOC

Slate Millipede (Comanchelus chihuanus)                                               USFWS SOC

Birds

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) USFWS SOC Associated with prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) towns in dry, open, short-grass, treeless plains.

Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus)

State NM T

Southwestern U.S. is the northern extent of this species’ range. Occurs in New Mexico almost exclusively during the breeding season and in migration. Breeding populations known chiefly from the Gila River Valley in the southwestern portion of the state and from along the Mimbres River and the Rio Hondo watershed. Strongly tied to cottonwood gallery forests. In Texas breeds in or near the Trans-Pecos Region, with breeding documented in particular in the Davis Mountains and possible breeding along the Rio Grande. In New Mexico, uncommon summer resident, generally, restricted to the mountainous riparian habitats of the San Francisco, Gila, and Mimbres river drainages. 

Neotropic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax brasilianus)

State NM T

The Neotropic Cormant reaches its northern distribution in southern New Mexico. It feeds in lakes and wetlands.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus)

State NM T

Occurs in New Mexico year-round. Breeding is restricted to a few areas mainly in the northern part of the state along or near lakes. In migration and during winter months the species is found chiefly along or near rivers and streams and in grasslands associated with large prairie dog colonies. Typically perches in trees.

Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis)

USFWS E

State E

Associated with semi-desert grasslands with scattered yuccas, mesquite, and cactus.The species has also been reintroduced on the Armendaris Ranch in Socorro and Sierra Counties and on lands administered by the BLM, White Sands Missile Range, and the SLO beginning in 2006.

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)

State T

A year-round resident and local breeder throughout NM, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.

Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius)

State NM T

Winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.

Southwestern Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus)

USFWS E

State NM E

The flycatcher is a summer breeder within its range in the United States. It is gone to wintering areas in Central America by the end of September. For nesting, requires dense riparian habitats (cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation) with microclimatic conditions dictated by the local surroundings

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

State NM S

Breeds in coniferous forests; winters in farmlands, woodland edges, and open country. Breeds from Alaska east through Mackenzie and northern Quebec to Newfoundland, and south to New Mexico, Great Lakes, and New England; also southward to northern Appalachians. Winters south to Virginia and Southwest.

Unlikely to occur in project area due to lack of coniferous forest habitat.

Broad-billed hummingbird

State NM T

Reaches extreme northern range in desert canyons of southern New Mexico with dense mesquite thickets.

Unlikely to occur due to lack of canyon habitat.

White-eared hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis)

State NM T

Irregular summer visitor to extreme southeastern Arizona; rare in New Mexico and Texas. Found in Mountain woodlands.

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)

State NM E

Generally found in warm marine waters, rarely occurring inland.  Only individuals seen in New Mexico, near water. May be storm-driven birds that moved inland during duress.

Baird's sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii)

State NM T

A winter resident in New Mexico and Texas. Generally prefers dense, extensive grasslands with few shrubs. Avoids heavily grazed areas.

Bell’s Vireo

State NM T

A small insectivorus bird, prefers dense vegetation of scrubby woodlands, old fields, or mesquite brushlands.

Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinio)

State NM T

Species strongly associated with piñon-juniper and scrub oak habitats. Distributed mainly across the western two-thirds of the state. Prefers gently sloped canyons, rock outcrops, ridge tops, and moderate scrub cover. 

Mammals

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)

State T

Found in open habitats, Ponderosa Pine forests, and marshlands. Suitable roosting sites limits distribution to areas within flying distance of cliffs and stony outcrops. (Adams, 2003)

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

State S

Habitat includes montane forests and arid habitats with limited desert scrub vegetation.  Roosting sites include caves, cliffs, and rock ledges but have been found in abandoned mines and other man-made structures. (Adams, 2003)

E = Endangered. Any species considered by the USFWS as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA specifically prohibits the take of a species listed as endangered. Take is defined by the ESA as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such conduct.

T = Threatened. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA specifically prohibits the take (see definition above) of a species listed as threatened. 

Rio Grande SIlvery Minnow

Interactive version: http://www.usbr.gov/tsc/rivers/awards/Nm2/rg/riog/schematic/SCHEMATICalbuquerquediv.html

The River. Like the Nile it rises in distant mountains, then flows down through farm, city, farm, and city, losing water to the desert. I've skipped over headwater steams in the highest alpine meadows in Colorado, and fished tributaries from the high peaks in the Wiemenuche, the San Juan, the Sangre de Christo mountains.

The Grande enters New Mexico as a whitewater river cut deep in a thousand-foot canyon, opens onto the agricultural floodplain of the (NM) Central Valley just north of Albuquerque and loses water continuously as it flows south toward Texas and Mexico.

It goes dry most years these days, fish left out under the oven sky. Agricultural diversions, cities. Dams and reservoirs. Water sinking into deep sand. Low-flow channels carry the remaining trickle south to satisfy more cities, interstate treaties. Fought over by water managers, farmers, and conservationists. (Link to article: How much water used by cottonwoods versus farmers versus cities. )


We went seining for fishes: white suckers, red shiners, catfish, chad and fathead minnows but most of all: Silvery Minnows, endemic to New Mexico and listed as Federally Endangered.

The Silvery Minnow is endangered for a range of reasons. Like many river fish it is negatively impacted by dams turning the river into lakes. The drying of the Rio Grande is probably more extensive now than it was before modern agricultural irrigation and pumping, but the Rio Grande probably always went dry and only remained wet in refugia...


Silvery Minnows: One thread in the tapestry of life. We were looking for silver needles in the full force of river water, the gush and rush, one and a half feet per second. We splashed into the surging river water, waded out to the river’s sand bars. We used bag and beach seines, color-coded buckets, rite-in-the-rain and water-resistant-(but susceptible) electronics, but the fish were nowhere to be found.

Mud flats held the first tiny dicotyledons of new weeds, sprouting. In a few isolated backwaters (I can’t say exactly where) we did find a few, or even many, Silvery Minnows, alive and wide-eyed. We photographed them, weighed and measured them, and checked whether they were tagged fish raised in a hatchery or a wild child, conceived in good ol’ mother nature.


For unknown reasons, the 2013 spawning was a good year for the Minnow and it seemed like it might bounce back then, but not much has been seen of that cohort since. Meanwhile, the lawyers aren't waiting .... (link to Wild Earth Guardians lawsuit)

And then there was 1....

AZ Star Article: Jaguar Tracks found at Site of Proposed Rosemont Mine

Possibly the only jaguar in the US.

The newspaper came out in favor of the mine several days later.  Many people think that Endangered Species on Federal lands are protected.  But the USFWS has decided that the mine would not significantly affect the overall population of jaguars throughout the Americas.  Even though it would make a lake out of the mountain whereupon resides the only (last) known jaguar in the US.   Many development or land management projects impact Threatened and Endangered species, with management plans written to address incidental take and to make a decision of No Significant Impact.  For example, the caves of several thousand Mexican Long-Nosed Bats (also Endangered) would be destroyed, but because this particular population of bats represents less than 10% of the remaining bats in AZ, the mine will be allowed to go ahead.

Alien Invaders in Tucson, Arizona

Don't Panic, but the mayor and other elected officials are unanimous: this is an urgent threat to our home and way of life: if something isn't done soon, our fair city may be "unrecoverable".



high resolution

Save Wolves from Federal Incompetence

Letter to the Editor:

The recent admission by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that only 29 gray wolves survive in Arizona (plus 23 in New Mexico) comes at the end of a multi-million dollar 10-year recovery effort. As a highly endangered species, our wolves, like all threatened animals in this great country, were afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. But, instead of protecting the wolves as is their mandate, Fish and Wildlife continues to trap and kill the last remaining wolves in the Southwest.

Rather than listing the wolf population as endangered, Fish and Wildlife has, through a bureaucratic loophole, listed our wolves as an "experimental population" in the wild. This wordplay allows the government to exterminate wolves that venture outside of arbitrary wilderness release areas, as long as "backup" wolves are bred in captivity. Instead of letting mother nature restore the wolf for free, we pay millions of dollars to breed, release, and then kill wolves in an absurd parody of nature.

A more cynical citizen might presume political malfeasance in creating a "recovery plan" that was designed to fail. But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to our hardworking elected officials and presume that this situation is simply the result of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. The sheer incompetence, not to mention futile waste of taxpayer dollars, of this "experiment" is outrageous...with such low population levels the Southwest's gray wolf is poised to slip through a bureaucratic loophole into oblivion. If we wish to allow the wolf to survive we cannot allow the continued incompetence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.