http://www.eswr.com/docs/listing/proposedlistings.htm and below, as of Dec. 19.
Federal Register Documents – Division of Policy and Directives Management
|
Dec 212011
Dec 192011
Go to this FWS page for proposed rules, 90-day findings, etc.
| Subtitle | Text | |
| Removal of the Concho Water Snake From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of Designated Critical Habitat 66780-66804 10/27/2011 RIN 1018–AU97 Docket ID: FWS-R2-ES-2008-0080 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat 62928-62960 10/11/2011 RIN 1018-AV88 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Endangered Status for the Ozark Hellbender Salamander 61956-61978 10/06/2011 RIN 1018-AV94 Docket ID: FWS-R3-ES-2009-0009 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet 61599-61621 10/05/2011 RIN 1018-AW84 Docket ID: FWS-R1-ES-2008-0079 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Determination of Endangered Status for Casey’s June Beetle and Designation of Critical Habitat 58954-58998 09/22/2011 RIN 1018-AV91 Docket ID: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0019 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened 58868-58952 09/22/2011 RIN 0648-AY49 Docket ID: 100104003-1068-02 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Bald Eagles Nesting in Sonoran Desert Area of Central Arizona Removed From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 54711-54713 09/02/2011 RIN 1018-AX08 Docket ID: FWS-R2-ES-2011-0069 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of California Tiger Salamander 54346-54372 08/31/2011 RIN 1018-AW86 Docket ID: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0044 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Removal of the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 50680-50702 08/16/2011 RIN 1018-AW62 Docket ID: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0039 Action: Final rule; notice of availability of final post-delisting monitoring plan. |
Text | |
| Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range 50052-50080 08/11/2011 RIN 1018-AW39 Docket ID: FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Emergency Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, and Emergency Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly 49542-49567 08/10/2011 RIN 1018-AX83 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0043 Action: Emergency rule. |
Text | |
| Endangered Status for the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace 48722-48741 08/09/2011 RIN 1018-AV85 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0027 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Reinstatement of Listing Protections for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) 47490-47491 08/05/2011 RIN 1018-AX93 Docket ID: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0062 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Removal of Echinacea tennesseensis (Tennessee Purple Coneflower) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 46632-46650 08/03/2011 RIN 1018-AW26 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059 Action: Final rule; availability of final post-delisting monitoring plan. |
Text | |
| Determination of Endangered Status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and Threatened Status for Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) 45054-45075 07/27/2011 RIN 1018–AV83 Docket ID: FWS-R6-ES-2010-0015 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 38575-38576 07/01/2011 Docket ID: FWS-R1-ES-2011-N020 Action: Notice of document availability: revised recovery plan. |
Text | |
| Designation of Critical Habitat for Tumbling Creek Cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) 37663-37677 06/28/2011 RIN 1018-AW90 Docket ID: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Bull Trout in the Clackamas River Subbasin, OR (Salvelinus confluentus) 35979-35995 06/21/2011 RIN 1018-AW60 Docket ID: FWS-R1-ES-2009-0050 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Reinstatement of Listing Protections for the Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel in Compliance With a Court Order 35349-35350 06/17/2011 RIN 1018-AX80 Docket ID: FWS-R5-ES-2011-0035 Action: Final rule. |
>Text | |
| Designation of Critical Habitat for Roswell Springsnail, Koster’s Springsnail, Noel’s Amphipod, and Pecos Assiminea 33036-33064 06/07/2011 RIN 1018-AW50 Docket ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0014 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Reclassification of the Tulotoma Snail From Endangered to Threatened (Tulotoma magnifica) 31866-31874 06/02/2011 RIN 1018-AX01 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout its Range with Special Rule (Cacatua moluccensis) 30758-30780 05/26/2011 RIN 1018-AW00 Docket ID: FWS-R9-IA-2009-0056 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Final Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus Jaegerianus (Lane Mountain Milk-Vetch) 29108-29129 05/19/2011 RIN 1018-AW53 Docket ID: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0078 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Sonoran Pronghorn in Southwestern Arizona 25593-25611 05/05/2011 RIN 1018-AW63 Docket ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0077 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Reissuance of Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 25590-25592 05/05/2011 RIN 1018-AX81 Docket ID: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0032 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| 44 Marine and Anadromous Taxa: Adding 10 Taxa, Delisting 1 Taxon, Reclassifying 1 Taxon, and Updating 32 Taxa on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 20558-20567 04/13/2011 RIN 1018-AW09 Docket ID: FWS-R9-ES-2008-0125 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Reclassification of the Okaloosa Darter From Endangered to Threatened and Special Rule (Etheostoma okaloosae) 18087-18103 04/01/2011 RIN 1018–AW95 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0071 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Designation of Critical Habitat for Carex lutea (Golden Sedge) 11086-11111 03/01/2011 RIN 1018-AW55 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened 10166-10203 02/23/2011 Docket ID: FWS-R6-ES-2010-0087 Action: Notice of 12-month petition finding. |
Text | |
| Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) 9681-9692 02/22/2011 RIN 1018-AV73 Docket ID: FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus, Bufo californicus). 7246-7467 02/09/2011 RIN 1018-AV89 Docket ID: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0069 Action: Final rule. (Note: Large file size – PDF is 6 MB) |
Text | |
| Final Revised Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved Brodiaea) 6848-6925 02/08/2011 RIN 1018-AW54 Docket ID: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073 Action: Final rule. (Note: Large file size – PDF is 4.5 MB) |
Text | |
| Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Endangered Whooping Cranes in Southwestern Louisiana (Grus americana) 6066-6082 02/03/2011 RIN 1018-AX23 Docket ID: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0057 Action: Final rule. |
Text | |
| Removal of Erigeron maguirei (Maguire Daisy) 3029-3044 01/19/2011 RIN 1018-AU67 Docket ID: FWS-R6-ES-2008-0001 Action: Final rule. |
Text |
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s 12-month finding on bald eagles in Arizona was procedurally flawed, a federal judge ruled today.
Bald eagle (Photo by Mike Lockert, FWS)
(Editor’s note: We initially reported that the judge found the delisting decision was “illegal,” but it appears that for now, the eagle is still off the list in Arizona. As the judge said in his order, “Plaintiffs also ask the court to enjoin [FWS] from applying the 2007 delisting rule to the desert eagle until the 12-month finding has been revised on remand. Defendants [FWS] seek an opportunity to brief the propriety of injunctive relief before the court imposes such a remedy. The court will establish a short briefing schedule and resolve the issue of injunctive relief in the next several weeks.”)
The judge directed the parties to submit briefs by Dec. 16 on the plaintiffs’ request that the court enjoin FWS “from applying the 2007 delisting rule to the desert eagle until the 12-month finding has been revised on remand.”
A couple of quick excerpts from U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell’s opinion:
“The Court will set aside the 12-month finding as an abuse of discretion and require FWS to complete a new 12-month finding. Because it does not appear that the status review process was procedurally flawed, the Court will not require FWS to start the process over again with notice and public comment. The Court instead will require FWS to complete a new 12-month finding based on information gathered and consultations completed during the status review conducted in response to Judge Murguia’s order. The Court expresses no view on the proper outcome of the new 12-month finding.”
“This Court agrees that the 2007 delisting rule was not a valid status review for the desert eagle. FWS did not comply with the notice, comment, and consultation requirements established by statute and regulations for a status review and 12-month finding. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A), (B); 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(3), 15(a) & (c). As a result, the 2007 delisting rule should not have become FWS’s de facto decision on the DPS issue, to be departed from only for compelling reasons. An invalid status review should not trump a valid status review. Findings reached without appropriate notice, comment, and consultation should not become an agency’s presumptive decision. Such a procedure flies in the face of the notice, comment, and consultations requirements of the law.”
For Release on November 23, 2011
Contact: Christopher Servheen, 406-243-4903
Greater Yellowstone Area Population of Grizzly Bears Remains Under Federal Protection
Service to Evaluate New Information Regarding Whitebark Pine as Food Source
The 9th Circuit Court Appeals ruled on November 22, 2011 that the population of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area, which includes northwestern Wyoming, southern Montana, and northeastern Idaho, should remain federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
While the ruling means that the population will remain listed for the time being, the court also affirmed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) determination that the existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect grizzlies in the Yellowstone area. The Service believes the ruling provides a clear path for eventual delisting of grizzly bears in the area once the agency analyzes and clarifies the relationship between declines in whitebark pine and grizzly bear recovery.
“Our next step will be to better explain the relationship between whitebark pine and grizzly bear population recovery and health in the Yellowstone area. We will work with Federal and State agencies and can also call on the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative and our management partners including the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee to help provide robust scientific information to support this effort,” said Steve Guertin, the Service’s Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region. “Through this cooperative effort, we will ensure the best available science regarding climate change and other stressors on grizzly bears and other wildlife species in the Northern Rockies is used to support our decision-making.”
This finding for the Service recognizes the excellent work and commitment of federal and state partners to conserve grizzly bears by continuing to implement the conservation strategy developed by federal and state scientists, which incorporates intensive monitoring of the Yellowstone bears, their food sources, and their habitat.
In moving forward, the Service will carefully assemble all the biological information on the relationship between whitebark pine cone production and grizzly recovery and develop a detailed analysis of these relationships. This scientific analysis will be the basis for a new proposal to recover and delist this grizzly population.
The Service’s efforts to delist grizzlies in the area dates back to March 2007 when the Service announced that the Greater Yellowstone Area population of grizzly bears was a recovered and should be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. However, in September 2009, the Federal District Court in Missoula issued an order vacating the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Area grizzly population. In compliance with this order, the Yellowstone grizzly population was once again protected as a threatened population under the ESA.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit: www.fws.gov
The Ninth Circuit has partially affirmed a lower court ruling that found the Fish and Wildlife Service’s delisting of Yellowstone grizzly bears was unlawful (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 09-36100).
Ursus arctos horribilis (credit: USFWS)
Specifically, FWS did not “articulate a rational connection between the data in the record and its determination that whitebark pine declines were not a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly,” the court said.
“[O]f critical importance …, the [service's delisting] rule repeatedly acknowledges a ‘well-documented association’ between reduced whitebark pine seed abundance and increased grizzly mortality,” the court said.
In a news release issued the day after the decision, FWS said it would evaluate the availability of whitebark pine as a food source.
“Based on the evidence of a relationship between reduced whitebark pine seed availability, increased grizzly mortality, and reduced grizzly reproduction, it is logical to conclude that an overall decline in the region’s whitebark pine population would have a negative effect on its grizzly bear population,” the court said. “The service advances several rationales in the rule to support its conclusion that food shortages caused by whitebark pine declines are nonetheless ‘not a threat’ to the Yellowstone grizzly.” However, the court found “all of [those rationales] lacking.”
Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas partially concurred with his fellow judges, but also partially dissented, concluding that FWS relied on voluntary measures that may or may not be implemented. (See below for an excerpt.) The two judges in the majority were Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Richard C. Tallman. Tallman wrote the opinion.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the beginning of the opinion that summarize the issues and the court’s conclusion:
The service’s delisting decision, the subject of this appeal, raises a host of scientific, political, and philosophical questions regarding the complex relationship between grizzlies and people in the Yellowstone region. We emphasize at the outset that those are not the questions that we grapple with here. We, as judges, do not purport to resolve scientific uncertainties or ascertain policy preferences. We address only those issues we are expressly called upon to decide pertaining to the legality of the service’s delisting decision: first, whether the Service rationally supported its conclusion that a projected decline in whitebark pine, a key food source for the bears, does not threaten the Yellowstone grizzly population; and second, whether the service rationally supported its conclusion that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to maintain a recovered Yellowstone grizzly population without the ESA’s staunch protections.
As to the first issue, we affirm the district court’s ruling that the service failed to articulate a rational connection between the data in the record and its determination that whitebark pine declines were not a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly, given the lack of data indicating grizzly population stability in the face of such declines, and the substantial data indicating a direct correlation between whitebark pine seed availability and grizzly survival and reproduction. As to the second issue, we reverse the district court and hold that the service’s determination regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was reasonable.
In his dissent, Circuit Judge Thomas said he agreed with the majority’s conclusion that FWS did not “articulate a rational connection between the record data and its determination that whitebark pine declines were not likely to threaten the Yellowstone grizzly bear.” But breaking with the majority, Thomas also said he would have agreed with U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy “that the agency also erred in concluding the Yellowstone grizzly is not threatened by ‘the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms,’ ” specifically the “Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area.”
The service’s reliance on voluntary action is contrary to law. The phrase “regulatory mechanism” plainly does not encompass voluntary, unenforceable measures such as the Strategy and many of its components. Or. Natural Res. Council v. Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1155 (D. Or. 1998) (interpreting 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(D) to mean that “the [agency] must base its decision on current, enforceable measures”). The service therefore erred by considering the strategy’s voluntary and unenforceable components in its Factor D determination. Good intentions are not rules of law. Unenforceable aspirational goals are not regulatory mechanisms. Promises to monitor, review, and convene committees do not satisfy the statutory requirement. See Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 72 (2004) (noting that monitoring is not a legally binding commitment under the APA). Thus, the rule must be vacated for non-compliance with 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(D). See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (“[A]n agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider . . . .”).
Links
Grizzly bear species profile from FWS
FWS FR notice reinstating threatened status for Greater Yellowstone grizzlies (3/26/10)
Go here for U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth’s opinion in State of Alaska and Escopeta Oil Company v. NOAA and Alaska Center for the Environment (10-927 RCL, D.D.C.)
Thanks, Royce. Stop by if you're in the neighborhood.
Here’s the judge’s summary of his 25-page opinion, issued Nov. 21, 2011:
“The absence of an expected change is sometimes indistinguishable from the presence of an observed one. So when the best available science predicts that a recently enacted ban on subsistence hunting will reverse the abrupt depletion of a species, a decade without any noticeable recovery in the species’ population should raise a concern that the true cause of its decline has not been fully addressed. The species in this case—beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet—was nearly wiped out by a catastrophic spree of subsistence whaling between 1994 and 1998. More than a decade later, and despite the passage of a legislative moratorium on subsistence hunting in 1999, the population of Cook Inlet beluga whales has failed to show any appreciable signs of recovery. For this and other reasons, the National Marine Fisheries Service granted a petition to list the species as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The Service’s decision is rational and is supported by the administrative record, and the defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment.”
More to come — SD
Links
- Associated Press story (by Dan Joling) (Note: Lamberth’s name is misspelled. It does indeed have an “r”)
- Beluga whale management and recovery (more links than you can shake a stick at)
- Beluga whale research and reports
- Notice of intent to prepare recovery plan (75 FR 4528, January 28, 2010)
- Defenders of Wildlife’s beluga page
Nov 132011
Franklin’s bumble bee positive 90-day finding issued (with news release of Sept. 12, 2011)
NatureServe Explorer report on the bee
Recent FWS news releases on species
Fish and Wildlife Service Posts Supplementary Materials on Gray Wolf in the Eastern United States (Sept. 14, 2011) (and Aug. 26 press release)
Service Announces Bald Eagles Nesting in Sonoran Desert Area of Central Arizona Removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Sept. 2, 2011)
Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes to End Southern Sea Otter Translocation Program (Aug. 17, 2011)
Salazar Announces Recovery of Lake Erie Watersnake (Aug. 15, 2011)
FWS emergency lists Miami Blue butterfly as endangered (Aug. 9, 2011)
Conservation Success: Tennessee Purple Coneflower Delisted (Aug. 4, 2011)
Sep 132011
Update Sept. 14, 2:40 pm
What were we thinking? We posted the news on the listing settlements without linking to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s memorandum opinion and order formally approving them. The settlements require the Fish and Wildlife Service to make listing decisions (petition findings and final listing determinations, for example) on hundreds of species over the next seven years.
- Sullivan’s opinion/order from ESWR’s web site
Let’s get the links out of the way first. Here is the Center for Biological Diversity’s news release, which of course links to its settlement with FWS.
Then there’s WildEarth Guardians’ page on its own settlement agreement, also approved by Sullivan Friday. There’s also this video on the species covered by the settlement.
Fish and Wildlife Service has its own web page on the agreements. Linked there are the service’s work plan and other documents. I’ve taken the liberty of pasting some of the service’s links below.
- Learn more about the 2010 CNOR species included in our [FWS's] work plan, including which ones are located in your state.
- Court Order Approving FWS Settlement Agreement with Wild Earth Guardians (Sept. 9, 2011)
- Court Order Approving FWS Settlement Agreement with Center for Biological Diversity (Sept. 9, 2011)
- Listing Work Plan Supplementary Settlement Agreement with Center for Biological Diversity (July 12, 2011)
- FAQ on Strengthening the Listing Program Work Plan (July 12, 2011) (Press Release)
- Listing Work Plan Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Wild Earth Guardians (May 10, 2011)
- Exhibit A: Listing and Critical Habitat Actions Pursuant to Court Orders and Settlement Agreements (May 10, 2011)
- Exhibit B: Listing and Critical Habitat Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and 2012 (May 10, 2011)
- Get answers to frequently asked questions on the Listing Work Plan (May 10, 2011)
- Press Release for the May 10, 2011, Listing Work Plan announcement.
- Media coverage: Here’s a link to some news stories on the settlements.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) should be listed as threatened or endangered, but that “[w]ork on a proposed listing determination . . . is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing determinations.”
The pine, which is found in seven Western states, faces “high-magnitude, imminent threats,” but the service said it can’t continue to work on it without the money.
Whitebark mortality in Yellowstone ecosystem (from NRDC_Media)
Dead and dying whitebark pines near Goodwin Lake, Gros Ventre Range, Wyoming (Photo by Whitney Leonard for NRDC)
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which petitioned the service and then sued to force a response, said the pine “is the first broadly dispersed tree that the federal government has clearly pegged as a climate casualty.” NRDC added that “A recent study shows 80 percent of the whitebark pine forests in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are already dead or dying.”
Whitebark pine is an important food source for grizzly bears.
“The rapid decline of whitebark pine is one of the most dramatic signs of how quickly our mountain ecosystems are warming,” NRDC’s Sylvia Fallon, lead author of the petition, said. “There are things we can do to buoy these trees and the ecosystems that depend on them for a while–but we have to get to the hard work of dealing with the underlying climate issue before a host of other species join whitebark on the long, hot march to extinction.”
Mildly edited excerpts from 12-month finding:
Climate change is expected to significantly decrease the probability of rangewide persistence of Pinus albicaulis. Projections from an empirically based bioclimatic model . . . showed a rangewide distribution decline of 70 percent and an average elevation loss of 333 m (1,093 ft) for the decade beginning in 2030 (Warwell et al. 2007, p. 2). At the end of the century, less than 3 percent of currently suitable habitat is expected to remain (Warwell et al. 2007, p. 2). Similarly, climate envelope modeling on P. albicaulis distribution in British Columbia estimated a potential decrease of 70 percent of currently suitable habitat by the year 2055 (Hamman and Wang 2006, p. 2783). The area occupied by P. albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem also is predicted to be significantly reduced with increasing temperature under various climate change scenarios (Schrag et al. 2007, p. 6). Pinus albicaulis is predicted to be nearly extirpated under a scenario of warming only and warming with a concomitant increase in precipitation (Schrag et al. 2007, p. 7). Fire suppression has had unintended negative impacts on Pinus albicaulis populations (Keane 2001a, entire), due to this shift from a natural fire regime to a managed fire regime. Stands once dominated by P. albicaulis have undergone succession to more shade-tolerant conifers (Arno et al. 1993 in Keane et al. 1994, p. 225; Flanagan et al. 1998, p. 307). Once shade-tolerant conifer species become firmly established, the habitat is effectively lost to P. albicaulis until a disturbance like fire once again opens the area for P. albicaulis regeneration.
Direct habitat loss from climate change is anticipated to occur with current habitats becoming unsuitable for P. albicaulis as temperatures increase and soil moisture availability decreases (Hamman and Wang 2006, p. 2783; Schrag et al. 2007, p. 8; Aitken et al. 2008, p. 103). Habitat loss is expected because (1) temperatures become so warm that they exceed the thermal tolerance of P. albicaulis and the species is unable to survive or (2) warmer temperatures favor other species of conifer that currently cannot compete with P. albicaulis in cold high-elevation habitats. Pinus albicaulis is widely distributed and thus likely has a wide range of tolerance to varying temperatures (Keane 2011c, pers.comm.). Therefore, increasing competition from other species that cannot normally persist in current P. albicaulis habitats is possibly the more probable climate-driven mechanism for habitat loss. Historical (paleoecological) evidence indicates that plant species have generally responded to past climate change through migration, and that adaptation to changing climate conditions is less likely to occur (Bradshaw and McNeilly 1991, p. 12; Huntley 1991, p. 19). Adaptation to a change in habitat conditions as a result of a changing climate is even more unlikely for P. albicaulis, given its very long generation time of approximately 60 years (Bradshaw and McNeilly 1991, p. 10). The rate of latitudinal plant migration during past warming and cooling events is estimated to have been on the order of 100 m (328 ft) per year (Aitken et al. 2008, p. 96). Given the current and anticipated rates of global climate change, migration rates will potentially need to be substantially higher than those measured in historic pollen records to sustain the species over time. A migration rate of at least a magnitude higher (1,000 m (3,280 ft)) per year is estimated to be necessary in order for tree species to be capable of tracking suitable habitats under projected warming trends
[W]arming temperatures are expected to result in direct habitat loss and are also currently causing an increase in populations of the predatory mountain pine beetle resulting in significant mortality rangewide.
Distribution
Pinus albicaulis occurs in scattered areas of the warm and dry Great Basin but it typically occurs on cold and windy high-elevation or high-latitude sites in western North America. As a result, many stands are geographically isolated (Arno and Hoff 1989, p. 1; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). Its range extends longitudinally between 107 and 128 degrees west and latitudinally between 27 and 55 degrees north (McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33). The distribution of P. albicaulis includes coastal and Rocky Mountain ranges that are connected by scattered populations in northeastern Washington and southeastern British Columbia (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). The coastal distribution of P. albicaulis extends from the Bulkley Mountains in British Columbia to the northeastern Olympic Mountains and Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, to the Kern River of the Sierra Nevada Range of east-central California (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268). Isolated stands of P. albicaulis are known from the Blue and Wallowa Mountains in northeastern Oregon and the subalpine and montane zones of mountains in northeastern California, south-central Oregon, and northern Nevada (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). The Rocky Mountain distribution of P. albicaulis ranges from northern British Columbia and Alberta to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13), with extensive stands occurring in the Yellowstone ecosystem (McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33). The Wind River Range in Wyoming is the eastern most distribution of the species (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33) (Figure 1).
Links
Photo of dead and dying whitebark pines near Goodwin Lake (Wyo.)
Whitebark pine info from NRDC’s page (result of search for “whitebark”)
Matt Skoglund (NRDC) blog post
Coverage in Washington Post
