Plant Species Overviews March 2018

Home , Adiantum aleuticum, Astragalus molybdenus, Astragalus wetherillii, Boechera crandallii, Cirsium clavatum, Crataegus douglasii

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Plant Species Overviews March 2018

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] (link sends e-mail). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Contents Adiantum aleuticum (Aleutian maidenhair) ...... 7 Aliciella pentstenonoides (Black Canyon gilia, beardtongue gilia) ...... 9 Aliciella sedifolia (stonecrop gilia, stonecrop gily-flower) ...... 11 Alsinanthe macrantha (House's stitchwort, House's sandwort) ...... 14 Arabis crandallii (Crandall's rock-cress) ...... 16 Argillochloa dasyclada, Festuca dasyclada (oil shale fescue, sedge fescue, Utah fescue) ...... 19 Arnica angustifolia Vahl ssp. tomentosa (narrowleaf arnica, alpine arnica) ...... 21 Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum (brightgreen spleenwort, green spleenwort) ...... 23 Asplenium septentrionale (forked spleenwort) ...... 25 Aster alpinus ssp vierhapperi (alpine aster) ...... 26 Astragalus anisus (Gunnison milkvetch) ...... 28 Astragalus linifolius (Grand Junction milkvetch) ...... 30 Astragalus molybdenus (Leadville milkvetch) ...... 32 Astragalus naturitensis (Naturita milkvetch) ...... 34 Astragalus wetherillii (Wetherill's milkvetch) ...... 37 Besseya ritteriana (Ritter's coraldrops) ...... 39 Botrychium lineare (narrowleaf grapefern) ...... 41 Botrychium paradoxum (peculiar moonwort) ...... 43 Botrychium pinnatum (northern moonwort)...... 45 Botrychium simplex (little grapefern, least grape-fern, least moonwort) ...... 47 Botrychium echo (reflected grapefern) ...... 49 Botrychium hesperium (western moonwort)...... 51 Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum (lanceleaf grapefern) ...... 53 Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort ...... 54 Braya glabella (smooth northern-rockcress) ...... 56 Braya humilis (alpine braya) ...... 58 Carex capitate (capitate sedge) ...... 60 Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge) ...... 64 Carex lasiocarpa Ehrhart (woollyfruit sedge) ...... 65 Carex leporinella (Sierra hare sedge) ...... 67 Carex limosa L. (mud sedge) ...... 69 Carex livida (livid sedge) ...... 72

Carex nelsonii (Nelson’s sedge) ...... 74 Carex perglobosa (globe sedge) ...... 76 Carex sartwellii (Sartwell’s sedge) ...... 78 Carex scirpoidea (Canadian single-spike sedge) ...... 79 Carex stenoptila (small-winged sedge) ...... 81 Carex viridula (green sedge) ...... 83 Chionophila jamesii (Rocky Mountain snowlover) ...... 85 Cirsium osterhoutii (Osterhout’s thistle)...... 86 Cirsium perplexans (adobe hills thistle) ...... 89 Cladina arbuscula (reindeer lichen) ...... 91 Comarum palustre (purple marshlocks) ...... 93 Corydalis caseana (Brandegee’s fumewort) ...... 95 Crataegus saligna (willow hawthorn) ...... 96 Crepis nana (dwarf alpine hawksbeard) ...... 98 Cryptantha weberi (Webers catseye) ...... 100 Cryptogramma stelleri (slender rock brake) ...... 102 Cystopteris montana (mountain bladder fern) ...... 104 Draba crassa (thickleaf draba) ...... 105 Draba globosa (rockcress draba) ...... 107 Draba graminea (San Juan draba) ...... 109 Draba incerta (Yellowstone draba) ...... 111 Draba malpighiacea (whitlow grass) ...... 113 Draba oligosperma (woods draba) ...... 115 Draba rectifructa (mountain draba) ...... 117 Draba spectabilis (showy draba) ...... 119 Draba streptobrachia (Colorado Divide whitlow-grass) ...... 121 Draba ventosa (tundra draba) ...... 123 Draba fladnizensis (Austrian draba) ...... 124 Draba lonchocarpa var. lonchocarpa (lancepod draba) ...... 126 Drosera rotundfolia (roundleaf sundew) ...... 128 Erigeron humilis (low fleabane) ...... 129 Erigeron lanatus (woolly fleabane) ...... 131 Eriogonum coloradense (Colorado wild buckwheat) ...... 133

Eriophorum altaicum (Altai cottongrass) ...... 135 Eriophorum chamissonis (Chamisso’s cottongrass) ...... 139 Eriophorum gracile (slender cottongrass)...... 141 Gymnocarpium dryopteris (Northern oak fern) ...... 143 Hamatocaulis vernicosus (hamatocaulis moss) ...... 145 Hippochaete variegate (variegated scouringrush) ...... 146 Iliamna grandiflora (large flower globe-mallow) ...... 148 Juncus bryoides (minute rush) ...... 150 Jungermannia rubra (Liverwort with no common name) ...... 152 Kobresia simpliciuscula (simple bog sedge) ...... 154 Lilium philadelphicum (wood lily) ...... 156 Listera borealis (northern twayblade) ...... 157 Lomatium bicolor (Oregon biscuitroot) ...... 159 Lomatium concinnum (Colorado desert-parsley) ...... 161 Lomatogonium rotatum (marsh felwort) ...... 163 Luzula subcapitata (Colorado woodrush) ...... 164 Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy-aster) ...... 166 Minuartia stricta (bog stitchwort) ...... 168 Monardella oderatissima (mountain wildmint) ...... 171 Myosurus cupulatus (western mouse-tail) ...... 173 Packera paupercula (balsan groundsel) ...... 175 Packera crocata (saffron ragwort) ...... 177 Papaver radicatum ssp. kluanense (alpine poppy) ...... 179 Pellaea atropurpurea (purple cliff brake) ...... 180 Pellaea glabella (smooth cliffbrake) ...... 182 Penstemon harbourii (Harbour’s beardtongue) ...... 184 Penstemon mensarum (Grand Mesa penstemon) ...... 186 Penstemon retrorsus (adobe beardtongue) ...... 188 Penstemon crandalli ssp. procumbens (Crandall’s beardtongue) ...... 190 Phacelia splendens (patch phacelia) ...... 192 Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia) ...... 193 Physaria alpine (Avery Peak twinpod) ...... 195 Physaria parviflora (Piceance bladderpod) ...... 198

Picradenia helenioides (Intermountain rubberweed) ...... 199 Pleurozium schreberi (feathermoss) ...... 200 Polypodium hesperium (western polypody) ...... 202 Polypodium saximontanum (Rocky Mountain polypody) ...... 203 Pyrola picta (whiteveined wintergreen) ...... 205 Ranunculus gelidus (tundra buttercup) ...... 206 Salix calcicola (lime-loving willow) ...... 209 Saxifraga cespitosa (tundra saxifrage) ...... 210 Sclerocactus glaucus (Colorado hookless cactus) ...... 212 Silene kingii (King’s campion) ...... 215 Sphagnum angustifolium (sphagnum) ...... 217 Sphagnum gigensohnii (Girgensohn’s sphagnum) ...... 219 Stellaria irrigua (Colorado starwort) ...... 221 Subularia aquatica (water awlwort) ...... 222 Sullivantia hapemanii (Hanging Garden sullivantia) ...... 224 Thalictrum heliophilum (sunloving meadowrue) ...... 226 Townsendia rothrockii (Rothrock’s Townsend daisy) ...... 228 Trichophorum pumilum (little bulrush) ...... 230 Trifolium kingii (King’s clover) ...... 232 Utricularia minor (lesser bladderwort) ...... 234 Woodsia neomexicana (New Mexico cliff fern) ...... 236

Adiantum aleuticum (Aleutian maidenhair) Adiantum aleuticum (Ruprecht) Paris 1991 (ADAL) (Paris 1988-1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012) Adiantum pedatum L. var. aleuticum Ruprecht 1845 A. p. L. var. caldera Cody, A. p. var. subpumilum W. H. Wagner Common name(s): Aleutian maidenhair Rank (CNHP 1/2016): G5?/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming; S2 in Utah, British Columbia and Quebec; S3S4 in Montana and Alaska; S4 in Oregon; in other states and provinces unranked.

Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5?/S1 Taxonomy. Distinguished from Adiantum pedatum by subtle characteristics of the frond (Paris 1993); in older literature A. aleuticum was considered a variety or subspecies of A. pedatum. Adiantum aleuticum in Weber and Wittmann (2012) and Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Alberta, B.C., Newfoundland, Quebec; Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming; Mexico in Chihuahua. One known location in Colorado, from a herbarium specimen collected (Flora of North America) in 1954 in Ouray County. The specimen label says “Common in side canyon just west of Poughkeepsie Gulch, 9.0 road miles southeast of Ouray on Red Mountain Pass road.” Apparently others have visited the site since 1954, because Weber and Wittmann (2012) say “rich spruce forests.” There are no other records from this site, showing that no one has searched for the species in the northern San Juan Mountains, or elsewhere in western Colorado. It seems likely that the species will be found in other areas in the National Forest and in Colorado. There are many mineral patents in the area, so it is uncertain that the population is indeed on the Uncompahgre National Forest. The closest known locations from the Ouray County location are in the western Uinta Mountains of Utah.

Abundance and population trend. For the GMUG occurrence, other than the description “common” on the herbarium label, no indication of population size or trend. “The four Wyoming populations appear to be secure” (Heidel 2001). The species is abundant in several locations in the Black Hills of South Dakota (Crook and Bacon 2002). Habitat. “Rich spruce forests” (Weber and Wittmann 2012), implying by the plural that they expect the species to be found in other locations. A somewhat different description is given by Paris (1993): “Adiantum aleuticum is disjunct in wet rock fissures at high elevations in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Mexico in Chihuahua…” It is unknown where the “rock fissures” in Paris’ description comes from. The one population occurs in the spruce-fir zone, apparently under dense canopy, but that is not enough to determine limits on habitat. Occurrences in other western states are associated with moist coniferous forests, sometimes near streams (Hickman 1993; Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). In the Pacific Northwest, Adiantum aleuticum is associated with soils derived from ultramafic rock, producing dark- colored soils with high Magnesium and Iron content and high pH (Alverson 2010). This kind of rock is well-represented in the area around Poughkeepsie Gulch, which may indicate why this fern is only found here. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Wet rocks and breaks mapped within the Spruce-Fir Ecosystem. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Unknown for the GMUG occurrence. In other places, the species is "a perennial arising from creeping rhizomes, with fragile fronds that seem vulnerable to desiccation. Spores can be produced during most of the growing season, June-September… Genetic analysis of fern populations indicates that the predominant mode of breeding is cross-breeding. Sperm travels via water (Vitt and others 1988, cited in Heidel 2001). Effects on species and habitat by current management. If this plant is limited by Iron- and Magnesium-rich soils, as suggested above, then it may have been more common in the area around Ironton Park; this area was intensively mined in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. There are still many mine dumps, buildings, tunnels and adits in this area, from that time of intensive mining; some were active into the current century. Current management on the National Forest focuses on rehabilitation of mined sites and the water draining from mined land. As the spruce-fir forest slowly regains canopy, perhaps habitats for this species will return, but this in conjecture. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Viability and conservation of the existing population will need to await better definition of its size, location, habitat, and health. The species is fairly easily propagated, and is available in nursery trade, which raises the possibility that new populations could be established in this area. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 13, 2016, revised May 27, 2017.

Literature Cited

Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

Alverson, E.R., 2010. A New Status for the Dwarf Maidenhair Fern of the Pacific Northwest Coast. American Fern Journal, 100(4), pp.230-233. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Crook, Reed Wright; and Darcie J. Bacon. 2002. Species evaluations: Adiantum aleuticum. Heidel, Bonnie. 2001. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5334269.pdf. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Paris, Cathy A. 1993. Adiantum Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, volume 2. Paris, Cathy A.; and Michael D. Windham. 1988. A biosystematics inventory of the Adiantum pedatum complex in eastern North America. Systematic Botany 13:240-255. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Aliciella pentstenonoides (Black Canyon gilia, beardtongue gilia) Aliciella pentstemonoides (M. E. Jones) J. M. Porter 1998 (ALPE11) (Jones 1893, Porter 1998) Gilia pentstemonoides M. E. Jones 1893 Common name(s): Black Canyon gilia, beardtongue gilia Rank (CNHP 1/2016): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Endemic to Colorado. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3

Taxonomy. The specific epithet is often misspelled “penstemonoides”, a correction not permitted under the rules of botanical nomenclature, since it was originally published as Gilia pentstemonoides, not an orthographic or typographic error. This is confirmed in the recent revision of the genus Aliciella (Porter 1998). Gilia pentstemonoides in Weber and Wittmann (2012), Aliciella penstemonoides in Ackerfield (2015) and PLANTS. Distribution. Endemic to southwestern Colorado, in Montrose, Gunnison, Ouray, Hinsdale, and Mineral Counties; to be expected in western Saguache County also. 30-35 locations in Colorado. Four known locations on the GMUG NF. Extensive searches have not been conducted on most of the GMUG. 34 records at CNHP. Abundance and population trend. Two GMUG populations have been counted: ±30, and 4. However, “population sizes are difficult to determine … because of the inaccessible, extensive, and

irregular nature of the cliff habitats [the plant] occupies.” Populations that have been counted in Colorado range from 3 to “thousands” (Peterson 1981, Beatty and others 2004). EO No. Indiv.

108 >50

109 100

2692 >100

2641 58

5964 <100

6220 >150

7152 6

7154* 4

8102* 30

8264 25 8340 >300

9546 25

9753 >100

9763 4

10685 10

15205 40

15206 32

Total >1,190

*GMUG population Habitat. Crevices, ledges, and rimrock of near-vertical cliffs and canyon walls, mostly of igneous and metamorphic origin. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Pollinated by various bees and Hymenoptera, but only a few flowers per plant appear at any one time. Other than these facts, very little is known about life history and demographics. It is sure that these will be very difficult to study (Peterson 1981, Johnston 2002). Confidence in natural history and demographics: Low. Effects on species and habitat by current management. These habitats are mostly resilient to any management activities. The effects of rock climbing on those sites that are accessible for that activity need to be assessed, however – currently unknown. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin owing to its restriction to cliff habitats that pose a

dispersal/migration barrier (Neely et al. 2011). This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. Inaccessible nature of the habitats affords a great deal of protection from almost any human- generated disturbance. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 4, 2016, revised May 26, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Beatty, Brenda L.; William F. Jennings; and Rebecca C. Rawlinson. 2004. Gilia penstemonoides [sic] (Black Canyon gilia): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 64 pp. Johnston, Barry C. 2002. Species evaluation for Gilia pentstemonoides. 2 pp. Jones, Marcus E. 1893. Gilia pentstemonoides n. sp. Contributions to Western Botany 4:279. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Peterson, J. Scott. 1981. Status report: Gilia pentstemonoides M. E. Jones. Denver, CO: Colorado Natural Areas Program. 27 pp. Porter, J. Mark. 1998. Aliciella, a recircumscribed genus of Polemoniaceae. Aliso 17(1): 23–46. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Aliciella sedifolia (stonecrop gilia, stonecrop gily-flower) Aliciella sedifolia (Brandegee) J. M. Porter 1998 (ALSE11) (Porter 1998, Weber and Wittmann 2012) Gilia sedifolia Brandegee 1899 Common name(s): stonecrop gilia, stonecrop gily-flower Rank (CNHP 1/2016): G1/S1, Fully Tracked Rank (NatureServe 2018): G1/S1

Taxonomy. First described as Gilia sedifolia by T. S. Brandegee in 1899, from a collection by Carl A. Purpus, no. 697, made on “Sheep Mountain, Uncompahgre Range” in July 1893 (Brandegee 1899, Tiehm 2002, Ertter 2002). Accepted as Aliciella sedifolia by Weber and Wittmann (2012) and Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in four or five known locations in Hinsdale and San Juan Counties. There is another possible location in southwestern Gunnison County or northwestern

Hinsdale County, on Sheep Mountain. There are several locations on the slopes and ridges of Half Peak, south of Lake City, discovered by Sue Komarek in 2003. Most of these are on the Rio Grande National Forest, but one is on the Uncompahgre National Forest. In 2007, Tim Hogan discovered a population in the upper Rio Grande drainage on Sheep Mountain, San Juan County, which he considers the type locality (Hogan 2008). However, the herbarium specimen and original species description (Brandegee 1899, Tiehm 2002, Ertter 2002) put the type locality at “Sheep Mountain, Uncompahgre Range,” which would seem to indicate the Sheep Mountain in southwestern Gunnison County, between the Little Cimarron River and the East Fork Cimarron River. (Purpus collected the type of Boykinia (Sullivantia) purpusii in the Black Canyon in July 1893 also.) This mountain and the surrounding ridges have been visited several times by the author and several other botanists, to no avail. The typical habitat described by Hogan seems not to be present, although the amount of land to be surveyed is large and only a small fraction has been covered to date. Abundance and population trend. The populations on Half Peak were described as “common locally” and estimated at >1,100 in 2003; and “many hundreds of plants” in 2007. In 2010, the population behind Half Peak was surveyed in a 5 ft × 100 ft belt transect, within which 95 Aliciella sedifolia plants were found (Rossignol 2010). The population on Sheep Mountain, San Juan County, was estimated at about twenty plants (Hogan 2008). Total abundance of the plant is very low, although trend cannot be determined.

Habitat. Barren shallow slopes of light-colored (“grayish white”) rhyolite pea-gravel (¼–1 in diam.) in the Alpine Zone, very little other vegetation (Hogan 2008, Komarek 2003, Rossignol 2010). Several botanists have mapped potential geological substrates (Anderson 2004, the author), and there remains a large amount of area in the San Juan Mountains yet to be searched, on National Forests as well as public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This is not an easy species to spot, and seems to appear only in certain years, for unknown reasons; Tim Hogan noted that competent botanists searching the same mountain in different years can have widely varying results. Forest Plan Ecosystems. All of the sites seen so far have been mapped as rocks and screes, surrounded by the Alpine Uplands ecosystem. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Half Peak, where most of the species occurs, is a popular climbing destination; Hogan (2008) noted that there were human tracks in one of

the Aliciella sedifolia sites. Half Peak is listed in several books as one of Colorado’s one hundred highest thirteen-thousand peaks. There doesn’t seem to be any effects on species or habitat by sheep grazing, since there is almost nothing in these barren gravelly sites for sheep to eat. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is Extremely Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin, owing to its narrow alpine endemism, restriction to cold environments, dependence on ice and snow, and restriction to a specific substrate of a specific size which poses a migration barrier. Presumably, conservation and viability would be helped by protection of the known sites from disturbance; but better definition of habitat is needed, as well as extensive searches for the plant in apparently suitable habitats (Neely et al. 2011). Viability is difficult to assess for any alpine plant; because growth is slow, detection of the effects of disturbance takes decades. We barely have fourteen years since this species was re- discovered. Nonetheless, it is still a very rare species based on current knowledge, and must have high concern for viability. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 4, 2016, revised May 27, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Anderson, David G. 2004. Gilia sedifolia Brandeg. (stonecrop gilia): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 43 pp. Brandegee, T.S., 1889. A collection of plants from Baja California. California Academy of Sciences. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ertter, Barbara. 2002. Collections of Carl A. Purpus. Online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/Purpus/collections1.html Hogan, Tim. 2008. Hunting for Aliciella (Gilia) sedifolia, the stone crop gilia. 3 pp. Komarek, Sue. 2003. Field survey report for Gilia sedifolia. 3 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Porter, J. Mark. 1998. Aliciella, a recircumscribed genus of Polemoniaceae. Aliso 17(1): 23–46. Rossignol, V. 2010. Report on survey of Aliciella sedifolia on Half Peak. 4 pp. Tiehm, Jerry. 2002. U. S. types based on Purpus collections. Online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/Purpus/types.html

Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Alsinanthe macrantha (House's stitchwort, House's sandwort) Minuartia macrantha (Rydberg) House 1921 Alsinanthe macrantha (Rydberg) W. A. Weber 1982 (ALMA14) Alsinopsis macrantha Rydberg 1904, Arenaria filiorum Maguire Common name(s): House's stitchwort, House's sandwort. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S3 Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Rabeler and others (2005), in Flora of North America, call it Minuartia macrantha, but admit that Minuartia is not monophyletic, and should be split. Accepted as a species by Colorado botanists; Weber and Wittmann (2012) as Alsinanthe macrantha, and Ackerfield (2015) as Minuartia macrantha. Distribution. Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado. In Colorado in Clear Creek, Montezuma, La Plata, Dolores, San Miguel, San Juan, Ouray, Hinsdale, Mineral, Conejos, Gunnison, Garfield, Park, Summit, Lake, Chaffee, and Pitkin Counties. Available herbarium specimens (COLO, RM, CS, UTC, Ft. Lewis College, DBG) show 90-100 sites in Colorado; Hartman and Rabeler (2008) show 83 dots in Colorado on their distribution map. CNHP has one record on the GMUG, but there are herbarium records for at least 17 sites on the GMUG, in Gunnison. San Miguel, and Hinsdale Counties, especially common in the Elk Mountains north of Crested Butte and the Fossil Ridge area. EO No. Indiv.

12302 ±1,000

12315 >100

12319 >100

12325* >300

Total >1,500

*GMUG site.

Abundance and population trend. Four of CNHP’s nine records have been counted, ranging from 100 to >1,500. Other occurrences were described as “locally common” or “abundant”,” in good health and good to excellent viability. Habitat. A mat-forming plant of alpine turf, fellfields, cushion communities, and snowmelt sites; openings in subalpine spruce-fir forest (CNHP). “Common alpine plant” (Weber and Wittmann 2012). “Commonly found on limestone substrates although a few labels indicate volcanics. Habitats vary from meadows to parklands to open [spruce, fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine]

forests; with increase in elevation, it is found in krummholz and alpine meadows, ridges, and scree and talus slopes” (Hartman and Rabeler 2008). On the GMUG, habitats include subalpine meadows, open krummholz forest, alpine tundra, rocky alpine slopes, and alpine ridges; sometimes on limestone, 11,500–13,000 ft elevation. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Unknown. Forest Plan Ecosystems. High subalpine meadows may be mapped as Montane–Subalpine Grasslands. Krummholz ridges, alpine tundra, rocky alpine slopes, and alpine ridges would be included within the Alpine Uplands and Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs ecosystems. Effects on species and habitat by current management. All of CNHP’s records show healthy, viable populations. A few of these sites on the GMUG are managed within domestic sheep range. It is unlikely that a small mat plant such as this would be palatable to sheep, but in any case we have no observations of sheep use; neither has decline of the species been observed within sheep range. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintain rocky alpine tundra and subalpine meadows in moderately high range condition. Populations seem large, no threatening factors have been mentioned, and sites are without restrictions on substrate. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the San Juan Mountains (including parts of the GMUG) owing to its restriction to cold alpine environments, short seed dispersal distances, the presence of high mountains that serve as natural barriers in suitable habitat, and dependence on ice and snow (Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 18, 2016, revised May 27, 2017.

Arabis crandallii (Crandall's rock-cress)

Arabis crandallii B. L. Robinson 1899 Boechera crandallii (B. L. Robinson) W. A. Weber 1982 (BOCR3) Arabis pallidifolia Rollins 1993 Common name(s): Crandall's rock-cress Rank (CNHP 1/2016): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. This species has been accepted ever since it was described, and is very common in the Gunnison Basin. Originally described as Arabis crandallii, it was transferred into the genus Boechera in 1982, and is now accepted as Boechera crandallii by all Colorado and Wyoming botanists, as well as nationally (Dorn 2003, Schrantz and others 2005, Al-Shehbaz 2010, Al- Shehbaz and Windham 2010, Ackerfield 2015). Rollins’ separation of Arabis pallidifolia in 1993 caused some difficulties. The characters used to differentiate the two species often overlap on the same plant, and the two species are difficult to separate in the field and in the herbarium; Ladyman (2005) considered them together in her assessment. Many herbarium specimens identified to B. crandallii before 1993 have not been re-examined. This includes specimens in southwestern Wyoming and in Eagle and Grand Counties, Colorado, verified as crandallii by Rollins himself before 1993. This overview considers the two together, for those reasons. Distribution. Western Colorado (Gunnison, Saguache, Montrose, Delta, Chaffee, Park, Eagle, and Grand Counties) and southwestern Wyoming (Carbon and Sweetwater Counties). CNHP has a small fraction of the records available. EO No. Individuals

4694* >3,000

6032* >3,000

6481* 300

12196 >1,000

12197 500

13646 50

13647 5

13665 50

13666 425

13668 12 13669 10

13670 8

13680 20

14347 300

Total >8,680

* GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. CNHP (2017) has 17 records for Boechera crandallii, and none for B. pallidifolia. Fourteen records have counts associated with them, ranging from 5 to >3,000 individuals; three GMUG populations have counts at CNHP, ranging 300 to >3,000. Counts from Chaffee County, east of the GMUG, are a lot smaller (5-20 in the table above). Boechera crandallii occurred in 96 transects done for the ecological classification of the Gunnison Basin 1992-1998 (Johnston and others 2001). Average cover of those 96 transects was 0.52%; if the plants average 10 x 10 cm and the sites average 2 acres, that means there are over 400,000 plants in just those 96 sites. Of those sites, 16 are on the GMUG, and at those sites average cover was 0.49%; using the same assumptions as above, there are over 63,000 Boechera crandallii plants in those NFS sites. All of these sites have been moderately to heavily grazed by livestock in the past 130 years, and are now used also by mule deer and elk. The specimens in southeastern Wyoming and in Grand and Eagle Counties, Colorado, were collected as part of general inventories; no intense searches were done in those areas. Likely several hundred occurrences in Colorado, and more than 50 on the GMUG. Habitat. In the Gunnison Basin most common in big sagebrush, serviceberry, and dry Douglas-fir forests, from 7,500-10,000 ft elevation. Soil gravelly or cobbly, within a large variety of soil types. Slope angle averaging about 30%, on all aspects, rarely north (Johnston and others 2001, Ladyman 2005). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-subalpine grasslands, Sagebrush shrublands, Warm-Dry Mixed Conifer. This species is common in the Sagebrush Shrubland ecosystem on the GMUG, most commonly with Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) or black sagebrush (A. nova), less commonly with mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana). It occurs also in windswept grasslands dominated by Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), part of the Montane-Subalpine Grassland ecosystem. It also occurs to a lesser extent in open Douglas-fir forests, perhaps part of the "Warm, Dry Mixed Conifer" type, although these stands usually have only one conifer species in them (Johnston and others 2001). Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Boechera crandallii is a perennial herbaceous plant, reproducing primarily by seed (Ladyman 2005). “Characteristics that are known about the life cycle and habitat of Boechera crandallii suggest that it is an r-selected, or stress tolerant, species” (Ladyman 2005). Boechera crandallii plants are occasionally infected with a rust, identified as Puccinia consimilis (Roy 1993, reported in Ladyman 2005). Although rust infection must cause reduced reproduction of the infected plant, effects on the whole population are probably slight, since the infection occurs in a small proportion of plants. Population demographics and structure are unknown. Pollen and seeds are small and easily carried by insects, wind, or water. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Species is apparently not palatable to livestock or wild animals. The plants are apparently resistant to trampling. Road and trail construction and maintenance has been observed to divide a population on the Gunnison National Forest (Ladyman 2005). Several populations of unknown size were probably destroyed in the construction of Blue Mesa Dam and filling of the reservoir behind it.

Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Gravelly soil within open sagebrush, serviceberry, and Douglas-fir stands. Boechera crandallii has a large number of plants on the GMUG, and even larger numbers on adjacent BLM, NPS, and private lands. These plants are unpalatable to grazing animals, and apparently able to do well under moderate to high levels of livestock grazing; it is likely a modest increase with grazing pressure. This species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on anthropogenic barriers that exist in known populations (Neely et al. 2011). Also, this species is restricted to cool or cold environments that are considered vulnerable to climate change. Globally rare, but often locally abundant in the Gunnison Basin. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 8, 2016, revised May 25, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. 2010. Subularia Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; and Michael D. Windham. 2010. Boechera Á. Löve and D. Löve. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Dorn, Robert D. 2003. A new species of Boechera (Brassicaceae) from Utah and Colorado. Brittonia 55(1):1-3. Johnston, Barry C., Laurie Huckaby, Terry J. Hughes, and Joseph Pecor. 2001. Ecological types of the Upper Gunnison Basin: Vegetation-soil-landform-geology-climate-water land classes for natural resource management. Technical Report R2-RR-2001-01, 858 pp. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. May, 2001. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2005. Arabis crandallii: A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 45 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Roy, B.A., 1993. Floral mimicry by a plant pathogen. Nature, 362(6415), pp.56-58. Schranz, M. Eric; Christoph Dobeš; Marcus A. Koch; and Thomas Mitchell-Olds. 2005. Sexual reproduction, hybridization, apomixis, and polyploidization in the genus Boechera (Brassicaceae). American Journal of Botany 92(11):1797-1810.

Argillochloa dasyclada, Festuca dasyclada (oil shale fescue, sedge fescue, Utah fescue) Festuca dasyclada Argillochloa dasyclada (Hackel ex Beal) W. A. Weber (ARDA4) Common name(s): oil shale fescue, sedge fescue, Utah fescue. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists, in Festuca (Darbyshire and Pavlick 2007) or Argillochloa (Weber 1984, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Distribution. Central-western and northwestern Colorado and central and southern Utah. In Colorado in Mesa, Garfield, and Rio Blanco Counties; 33 Colorado occurrences at CNHP. One location on the GMUG, on the slopes of Battlement Mesa, 8,500-9,500 ft elevation. Apparently more rare in Utah. EO No. EO No. Indiv. 256 12 7712 10 322 150 7865 500 450 10 8362 5,400 667 155 8363 150 938 >400 8556 150 1470 500 8866 35 1754 150 9492 1,200 2892 175 9847 300 3440 >100 10216 350 4394 500 10484 1,000 4730 78 11106 4 5635 47 11292 175 6203 ±300 13559 50 6245 25 Total >12,000 6518 10

Abundance and population trend. 28 populations have been counted by CNHP, ranging from 4 to 5,400, average about 425. The population on the GMUG extends over the Forest boundary to the White River National Forest, but the whole population has not been mapped. There have been no counts of this population, but the GMUG portion of the population has been estimated at about fifty. This population represents the southernmost occurrence of the species in Colorado, but it is fairly common, “abundant” (Weber and Wittmann 2012) to the northwest. The only known GMUG population is easily reached by walking up a closed road; there are other shale slopes on the south side

of Battlement Mesa that need to be searched for this species. Grass WebManual1 Habitat. Loose, steep, clay slopes derived from shale of various geological formations; GMUG population is on the Green River Formation. Occurs with Physaria (Lesquerella) parviflora and Thalictrum heliophilum. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane Shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Argillochloa dasyclada helps stabilize steep clay-shale slopes that are steep enough to be continually sloughing soil downslope. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG site shows no signs of recent grazing or other management. Mule deer and elk use these slopes for browse, forage, and cover, and it is known that they contribute to soil movement, however it is unknown if that soil movement impacts oil shale fescue on the GMUG. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. On the GMUG, openings and eroding shale slopes within Utah serviceberry – Gambel oak shrubland. Based on current knowledge, the GMUG has a very small portion of habitat for Argillochloa dasyclada which makes the conservation of the single occurrence there important for the continued viability of the species on the GMUG. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The location of the single occurrence of this species on the GMUG is shared with two other potential SCC species, Piceance bladderpod and Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue. Both of those species are noted to be Extremely Vulnerable to negative impacts from climate change on BLM lands in Colorado based on their preference for soils derived from shale of the Green River Formation which is the same soils that oil shale fescue relies on. As a result the logic follows that oil shale fescue is similarly vulnerable to negative impacts from climate change, because it shares the same soil and climate envelope as those species noted to be Extremely Vulnerable and is thus similarly vulnerable to changes to those factors. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 14, 2016, revised June 2, 2017, revised March 13, 2018.

1 http://herbarium.usu.edu/webmanual/

Arnica angustifolia Vahl ssp. tomentosa (narrowleaf arnica, alpine arnica)

Arnica angustifolia Vahl ssp. tomentosa (Macoun) Douglas and Ruyle-Douglas (ARANT) Arnica tomentosa Macoun Arnica alpina (L.) Olin ssp. tomentosa (Macoun) Maguire Arnica angustifolia Vahl var. tomentosa (Macoun) Cronquist

Common name(s): narrowleaf arnica, alpine arnica. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5T5/S1, Fully Tracked. Rated S1 in Wyoming, Newfoundland, and Yukon, S5 in British Columbia, otherwise not ranked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5T5/S1 Taxonomy. The taxon tomentosa accepted by most botanists, considered a variety of Arnica angustifolia in Flora of North America (Wolf 2006, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Formerly accepted as a variety of A. alpina. Not listed in Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta, Idaho and Montana through northwest Wyoming, disjunct in central Colorado. Also Quebec and Newfoundland. One or two populations in Colorado, all in the alpine on the boundary between the Gunnison and White River National Forests. It is uncertain whether the population(s) is in one or both of these national forests, and whether it is in Pitkin or Gunnison County.

Abundance and population trend. Records in Colorado and on the GMUG based on two herbarium specimens from 1980 and 1984. One record in Colorado at CNHP. There is no indication of population size or abundance. Apparently no one has searched for this species in other places in Colorado, although calcareous alpine sites are not very common. In Wyoming, “Population is locally abundant, but restricted to a specialized habitat occupying ca. 5 acres” (Fertig 1999). Habitat. “Flat open clay areas, sparsely vegetated; open slopes along roadside on disturbed ground” (herbarium specimen label). Part of this ridge is made up of limestone, the Belden Formation of Permian age (Day and others 1999). In Wyoming, this plant occurs also on calcareous soils in the alpine, “known from alpine cushion plant communities dominated by Phlox pulvinata on

semi-bare, dry, calcareous sandy-clay soils covered by loose gravel or in Artemisia scopulorum meadows at timberline at 10,500–11,100 feet” (Fertig 1999). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Unknown for Colorado or Wyoming populations. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The Colorado site is said to be along a roadside, but it is unknown whether this road is open or used by vehicles (since the exact site location is unknown). There are a number of other candidate conservation-concern plant species in the general area of the one GMUG site, including Braya glabella, Askellia nana, Draba globosa, Draba oligosperma, Erigeron humilis, Erigeron lanatus, Luzula subcapitata, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Muscaria monticola, Physaria alpina and Townsendia rothrockii. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Limestone or other calcareous slopes in the alpine zone. For conservation, need to protect alpine areas, especially calcareous sites, from disturbance. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains. The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 15, 2016, revised June 3, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Day, Warren C.; Gregory N. Green; Daniel H. Knepper Jr.; and Randal C. Phillips. 1999. Spatial geologic data model for the Gunnison, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre National Forests mineral resource assessment area, southwestern Colorado and digital data for the Leadville, Montrose, Durango, and Colorado parts of the Grand Junction, Moab, and Cortez 1° X 2° geologic maps. Open-File Report OF-99-427, 32 pp. Denver, CO: U. S. Geological Survey. Fertig, Walter. 1999. State species abstracts: Arnica angustifolia ssp. tomentosa (2 pp.), Selaginella mutica (2 pp.), Selaginella underwoodii (2 pp.). Laramie, WY: Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/WYNDD. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Wolf, Steven J. 2006. Arnica Linnaeus. Flora of North America 21:365-375.

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum (brightgreen spleenwort, green spleenwort)

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Asplenium viride Hudson 1762 (ASVI10) (Weber and Wittmann 2012) Common name(s): brightgreen spleenwort, green spleenwort Rank (CNHP 2016): G4/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in California, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Labrador, and Yukon; S1S2 in Northwest territories; S2 in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nova Scotia; S2S3 in Montana; S3S4 in Newfoundland; S4 in Ontario. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. All Colorado botanists accept this at the species level (Weber and Wittmann 2012 as A. viride, Ackerfield 2015 as A. trichomanes-ramosum). Formerly called Asplenium trichomanes- ramosum (Wagner and others 1993. Distribution. In North America, “widely distributed, mainly in the western states, but infrequent throughout” (NatureServe). Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, Labrador, New Brunswick, Newfoundland Island, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Yukon Territory. In Colorado, Garfield, Fremont, Custer, El Paso, Park, Gunnison and San Juan counties. There are 5 records at CNHP, one of which is on the GMUG. 3-5 locations on the GMUG, all on shaded limestone cliffs in the subalpine.

Abundance and population trend on the GMUG. CNHP's only record on the GMUG is from a 1986 herbarium specimen without abundance information. Four other GMUG sites are from

herbarium specimens not seen by CNHP; none have abundance information. At other locations in Colorado and Wyoming, populations are typically small, fewer than 50 individuals, but usually not occupying all apparently suitable habitat, implying that there are further, unknown habitat restrictions (Ode 2001, Fertig 2000). Populations seem stable in Colorado and Wyoming (Fertig 2000). Habitat. Shaded ledges and cracks of cliffs and outcrops of “limestone and other basic rocks” (Wagner and others 1993) In Colorado, limestone cliffs in the high mountains, 11,000-12,000 ft elevation (Weber and Wittmann 2012). In Wyoming, limestone outcrops near spruce-fir forests (Fertig 2000). On the GMUG, dry calcareous ledges and shaded cliffs, in the upper subalpine, 10,700-11,850 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. The populations on the GMUG occur on moist, shaded limestone cliffs, probably mapped within the Spruce–Fir Forest ecosystem. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Estimated effects are low to very low. Limestone and marble mines would be a possible effect, possible at one location on the White River National Forest; the GMUG sites are not mined, and are well away from roads and trails. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Moist to dry shaded limestone cliffs in the subalpine (spruce-fir) zone. Spruce-fir forests on the GMUG are undergoing a major spruce beetle outbreak that has caused significant canopy loss across the plan area, altering this species' habitat. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 18, 2016, revised May 23, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Fertig, Walter. 2000. State species abstracts: Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum (3 pp.), Boechera crandallii (2 pp.), Braya glabella (2 pp.), Carex diandra (3 pp.), Carex egglestonii (2 pp.), Carex nelsonii (3 pp.), Chionophila jamesii (2 pp.), Cryptogramma stelleri (3 pp.), Erigeron humilis (2 pp.), Eriophorum scheuchzeri (3 pp.), Kobresia sibirica (3 pp.), Kobresia simpliciuscula (2 pp.), Koenigia islandica (2 pp.), Machaeranthera coloradoensis var. coloradoensis (3 pp.), Packera crocata (2 pp.), Salix candida (4 pp.), Salix myrtillifolia var. myrtillifolia (3 pp.), Salix serissima (3 pp.), Salix myrtillifolia (3 pp.), Saxifraga chrysantha (2 pp.), Sisyrinchium pallidum (2 pp.), Trichophorum pumilum (3 pp.). Laramie, WY: Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/WYNDD. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Ode, David J. 2001. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5334930.pdf Wagner, Warren H., Jr.; Robbin C. Moran; and Charles R. Werth. 1993. Aspleniaceae Newman. Pp. 228-245 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Asplenium septentrionale (forked spleenwort)

1. Species: Asplenium septentrionale forked spleenwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of forked spleenwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5/S3S4

CNHP G5/S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently secure in Colorado – on CNHP watch list, not tracked by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Asplenium septentrionale as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from a single occurrences on the GMUG collected in 1996 in the Taylor River Canyon between Almont and Taylor Park Reservoir at the entrance to the North Bank Campground. This species is noted to be very scarce at this location, consisting of only 6 clumps scattered along ¼ mile cliff Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 1

Year Last Observed 1996

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in dry crevices on south facing granite cliff at 8500 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Rocky Slopes, Screes, and Cliffs

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species has a single occurrence on the GMUG; populations that are small and/or isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The cliff habitat of this species is not likely to be impacted by management activities. There is the possibility that the spruce beetle die off may affect the general area around this species but it is unclear how that would impact the dry south facing cliffs where this species is known. Cliff habitats are not directly addressed in any of the Climate Change Vulnerability reports that are available so how changes in climate may impact this species and its habitat is unknown.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

Aster alpinus ssp vierhapperi (alpine aster) Aster alpinus L. var. vierhapperi (Onno) Cronquist (ASALV) Aster alpinus L. ssp. vierhapperi Onno Aster culminis A. Nelson Common name(s): Vierhapper's aster, alpine aster

Rank (CNHP 2016): G5T5/S1, Fully Tracked. S1 in Wyoming and Ontario, S3-S4 or not ranked elsewhere. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5T5/S1 Taxonomy. Aster alpinus var. vierhapperi described by Onno in 1932, accepted by Cronquist (1955) as “the American phase of A. alpinus.” Name accepted by Colorado, Wyoming, and Alaska botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). “Confusion in identification often occurs with Erigeron caespitosus Nuttall, E. glacialis Nuttall, and E. hyperboreus, among others” (Brouillet 2006). “Misidentifications abound with other species of aster, as well as, mostly, with species of Erigeron" (Brouillet 2004).

Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Ontario, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado; eastern Siberia (Brouillet 2004, 2006). In Colorado, in Grand, Gilpin, Mineral, and Clear Creek Counties. The record from Mineral County is a specimen collected in 1968 somewhere between Rat Creek and Spring Creek Pass. This route is a ten-mile trail that follows the divide, which is the county line between Mineral and Hinsdale counties and between the Rio Grande and Gunnison National Forests. Since the collector of the specimen said she collected it in Mineral County, we can assume the occurrence is south of the divide, and on the Rio Grande National Forest. Thus the species is doubtfully on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. Four records at CNHP; only one was counted, at 140 individuals (Gilpin County). Except for the Gilpin County record, accurate mapping and population counts are not available for Colorado populations (Moore and Friedley 2006). The Mineral County location has not been searched for or re-located since 1968. Habitat. In Colorado, level to gently sloping alpine to upper subalpine turfs and grasslands, 10,780 – 11,500 ft elevation. The Mineral County specimen does not specify habitat or elevation; elevations of this trail segment are 12,300 – 13,200 ft. In Wyoming, alpine and high subalpine meadows. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Alpine Uplands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Unknown (Moore and Friedley 2006). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Not known certainly. Sheep grazing and trail use are possible disturbance factors.

Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintenance of alpine and high subalpine meadows in good condition, undisturbed by off-road vehicles and road construction. Not a lot of certainty here. It is unlikely that this species is on the GMUG. However, conservation concern might be moderate on the adjacent Rio Grande National Forest; assessment of conservation concern will await re-discovery of the site and investigation of the population. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 15, 2016, revised June 5, 2016.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Brouillet, Luc. 2004. New reports of Eurybia and Aster s. str. (Asteraceae: Astereae) from California, Idaho, and Wyoming. Sida 21(1): 459-461. Brouillet, Luc. 2006. Aster L. In Flora of North America, Volume 20, pp. 20-23. Cronquist, Arthur. 1955. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest, Part 5: Compositae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 343 pp. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Moore, Lynn; Sandy Friedley; and Donald L. Hazlett. 2006. Braya glabella ssp. glabella Richardson [sic] (smooth norther-rockcress): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 pp. Published online. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Astragalus anisus (Gunnison milkvetch) Astragalus anisus M. E. Jones (ASAN4) (Barneby 1964, Weber and Wittmann 2012) Common name(s): Gunnison milkvetch Rank (CNHP 2016): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2G3/S2S3

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists, and by the principal monographer of the genus in North America (Barneby 1964). Typically, fruits of this species are ovoid or nearly spherical, with conspicuous silvery-gray pubescence. However, occasionally there occurs an individual plant within a population of Astragalus anisus with elongated, nearly-glabrous fruit.

Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Gunnison, Saguache, and Hinsdale Counties. Abundance and population trend. Confirmed locations were 124 in 2003, compiled from records and measurements made by Gunnison Basin botanists and known herbarium specimens; most on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management; 26 were on the Gunnison National Forest. Decker and Anderson (2004) list 83 locations, 68 on BLM lands and nine on the Gunnison National Forest. About that time, botanists working in the Gunnison Basin stopped recording new populations; so there may be 250-300 populations of this species in this area. Several of the larger populations have been revisited. Although Astragalus anisus tends not to flower when May is wet, populations have been seen to be stable. New sites can be discovered easily within this range. Habitat. Gravelly open sagebrush stands and ridgetop grasslands, often with black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) on shallow, hard-clay soils, 7,600 – 9,350 ft elevation (Decker and Anderson 2004). Cover in these sites is low in quantity and stature, with significant gravel cover and bare soil cover (Johnston and others 2001, Decker and Anderson 2004). Forest Plan Ecosystems: Within the Sagebrush and Montane-Subalpine Grasslands ecosystems. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Astragalus anisus is an herbaceous perennial, reproducing by seed; unknown whether it is self-compatible. Although Astragalus anisus is not poisonous to herbivores, it is apparently unpalatable to cattle, domestic sheep, and mule deer. No clipping has been observed on plants even in deer and elk winter ranges and heavily-grazed domestic sheep ranges (Decker and Anderson 2004, personal observations). The plants of Astragalus anisus are apparently resistant to trampling, perhaps in part due to plants often growing in coarse gravel or beside cobbles on a slope. On the National Forest, “the population is believed to be stable” (Decker and Anderson 2004). Effects on species and habitat by current management/activities: Road building, maintenance and illegal off-road vehicle use has been responsible for some mortality, and could negatively affect the populations on the National Forest. “Livestock grazing is unlikely to threaten populations or the species as a whole” (Decker and Anderson 2004). However, impacts are significant where

animal concentrations are heavy, in overgrazed livestock pastures or critical winter ranges for mule deer or elk (Decker and Anderson, personal observations). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with very high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the BLM portion of the species range due to dispersal and migration barriers, limited seed dispersal, geothermal energy development, small range of precipitation and the reliance on nodulization (has symbiotic relationships with soil bacteria that are susceptible to alteration from changes in precipitation, temperature, and disturbance) (CNHP 2015). Conversely, this species is considered to be Presumed Stable to Likely Increase (with medium confidence) in the Gunnison Basin due to its tolerance to grazing (but not trampling), drought, and disturbance (Neely et al. 2011). Relatively undisturbed Wyoming big sagebrush and black sagebrush stands, over “sufficiently large areas where the natural ecosystem processes on which [the species] depends can occur, … includes a satisfactory degree of ecological connectivity between populations to provide corridors and other nectar resources for pollinators … maintain the mosaic of dry sagebrush shrublands, especially with moderate to sparse shrub cover” (Decker and Anderson 2004). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 16, 2016, revised May 25, 2017.

Literature Cited Barneby, R.C., 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Mem NY Bot Gard, 13, pp.1-1188. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Decker, K. and Anderson, D.G., 2004. Astragalus anisus ME Jones (Gunnison milkvetch): a technical conservation assessment. Johnston, Barry C., Laurie Huckaby, Terry J. Hughes, and Joseph Pecor. 2001. Ecological types of the Upper Gunnison Basin: Vegetation-soil-landform-geology-climate-water land classes for natural resource management. Technical Report R2-RR-2001-01, 858 pp. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. May, 2001. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Astragalus linifolius (Grand Junction milkvetch) Astragalus linifolius Osterhout (ASLI5) Common name(s): Grand Junction milkvetch. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3Q/S3, Fully Tracked. Before 1990, considered a candidate by the USFWS, but removed from that status in 1990 because “More abundant than once thought.” Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3Q/S3

Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists, including Barneby (1964), Isely (1998), Weber and Wittmann (2012), and Ackerfield (2015). However, “Some confusion exists about Astragalus linifolius' distinctiveness from A. rafaelensis” (Susan Spackman, CNHP). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Montrose, Delta, and Mesa Counties; east and west sides of the northern Uncompahgre Plateau. One site on the GMUG, above Roubideau Creek at 6,800 ft elevation. Abundance and population trend. Colorado Natural Heritage Program shows 65 records in this relatively narrow range (2016), combined down to 25 "occurrences" in 2017. Population sizes reported range from five to more than 4,000, The one site on the GMUG is estimated at over 500 plants, “scattered over a wide area;” individual plants are healthy, with little habitat disturbance, no weeds on the site (CNHP). There are several sites on the Manti-La Sal National Forest in Colorado. EO No. Plants 1917 9 2098 >1,000 2401 12 2973 28 3628 150 4210 >500 4838 4,000 5893 500 7776 >100 7803 >500 8267 >100 8423 2,000 9263 >1,000 9264 200 9951 >2,000 14688 >500 14908 >1,000 14909 >200 Total >13,800 Habitat. Canyon sides, swales, and open slopes, in open piñon-juniper woodland with sagebrush, or on edges of cottonwood riparian, often on alluvium or colluvium derived from the Chinle or Morrison Formations, elevations 4,800-7,200 ft. On the GMUG, open piñon-juniper barrens, northwest aspect, on shales of the Morrison Formation, with Pinus edulis, Zuckia brandegeei, and Artemisia nova, and much bare ground, constant soil movement, 6,640 – 6,920 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Cottonwood Riparian. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Astragalus linifolius “reproduces primarily through insect-mediated cross-pollination, although [it] is partially self-compatible” (Karron 1987). The most common pollinators are native bumblebees,

native digger bees, native mason bees, and the introduced honey bee (Karron 1987), mostly generalist pollinators. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG site is currently within management area 8 – “Wilderness or Areas to be Managed as Wilderness” (USDA Forest Service 1991). This designation would, among other things, prohibit motorized or mechanized use. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. The habitat, as described above, is fairly generalized; limits on the species’ distribution possibly depends on climate, pollinators, or some unknown soil factor. This species is known from only 1 location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 18, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Barneby, R.C., 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Mem NY Bot Gard, 13, pp.1-1188. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Isely, Duane. 1998. Native and naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum. 1,007 pp. Karron, Jeffrey D. 1987. The pollination ecology of co-occurring geographically restricted and widespread species of Astragalus (Fabaceae). Biological Conservation 39(3): 179-193. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Astragalus molybdenus (Leadville milkvetch) Astragalus molybdenus Barneby 1950 (ASMO8) Astragalus plumbeus Barneby 1949, not A. plumbeus Gontscharov 1946 Common name(s): Leadville milkvetch, molybdenum milkvetch. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S2 Taxonomy. At one time, Astragalus molybdenus included populations in northwestern Wyoming and in western Montana, now considered to be two separate species, Astragalus schulziorum Barneby from Wyoming and A. lackschewitzii Lavin and Marriott from Montana (Lavin and Marriott 1997). EO No.

334 >1,000

1434* 100

2300 >1,500,000

4113* >1,100

5286 >2,100

5364 >100

6765 50

8275 >100

10792* 50

11486* 160,000

13681 >10,000

14831* >500

Total >1,675,000

*. GMUG sites.

Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Gunnison, Pitkin, Lake, Park, Mesa, Chaffee, Hinsdale, and Summit Counties. CNHP shows 21 records for Colorado. There are 10-12 locations for this species on the GMUG. Arnica angustifolia var. tomentosa also occurs at or near one of these locations. Abundance and population trend. These plants are mat-forming, thus causing some variation in counting. The twelve populations that have been counted range in size from 50 to over 1½ million; most of the known plants of Astragalus molybdenus are in one very large population in Gunnison County on the White River National Forest. “There are insufficient data in the literature, associated with herbarium specimens, or at the Heritage Program to determine long- term trends over the entire range” (Ladyman 2003). Four GMUG populations have been counted, totaling more than 161,000. Trend data is lacking, although observations suggest that at least two GMUG populations have had stable numbers over the last 15-20 years. Habitat. Alpine to upper subalpine meadows, rocky slopes, ridges, fellfields, and scree slopes, 10,000 – 13,300 ft; most occurrences 11,800 – 13,100 ft. The sites vary from densely to sparsely vegetated. Many of the sites have been glaciated, and are on soils derived from limestone or other calcareous rocks. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs, Montane-Subalpine Grasslands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Herbaceous perennial plants, reproducing primarily clonally (vegetative or self-pollination), secondarily through pollination; relatively large seeds (Ladyman 2003). Most populations appear very healthy and viable. Populations are apparently limited by substrate, limited

dispersal, and competition with other species in some areas (Ladyman 2003). The plants are apparently not palatable to herbivores, as they occur abundantly in areas grazed by domestic sheep. They are apparently at least somewhat resistant to trampling, as it occurs in trails. At one site the plants were seen re-colonizing an abandoned trail. Effects on species and habitat by current management. At least twelve of the known sites are within wilderness areas, including two or three on the GMUG. Most of the sites have been affected by mining and mineral exploration, mostly occurring 80-100 years ago. Several sites show signs of being affected by illegal off-trail vehicles. The management areas under the current forest plan (USDA Forest Service 1991) for GMUG sites are: Site M. A. Management Area Emphasis

1434, 8874, 10792, 10899, 2A Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation 14831

1840 3A Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation

334, 4113 8 Wilderness

8349 10A Research Natural Areas Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin owing to its restriction to cold environments, dependence on ice and snow, and requirement of nodulization (Neely et al. 2011). Stable, undisturbed (or lightly disturbed) snow-accumulation sites on calcareous substrates in the alpine. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 19, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Johnston, Barry C. 1993. Alpine ecosystems and their management in the Southern and Central Rocky Mountains. Informal report, 16 pp. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2003. Astragalus molybdenus Barneby (Leadville milkvetch): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 44 pp. Lavin, M. and H. Marriott. 1997. Astragalus molybdenus s. l. (Leguminosae): Higher taxonomic relationships and identity of constituent species. Systematic Botany 22(2): 199-217. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Astragalus naturitensis (Naturita milkvetch)

Astragalus naturitensis Payson 1915 (ASNA) Astragalus aretinus M. E. Jones var. stipularis M. E. Jones 1895 Common name(s): Naturita milkvetch. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked; Ranked S2 in New Mexico, S1 in Utah. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3?/S2S3 Taxonomy. Accepted by all Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. In Colorado, Montezuma, San Miguel, Montrose, Mesa, and Garfield Counties. The distribution map appears as three clusters: 1. Northern Mesa County and southern Garfield County, 2. Northwestern San Miguel County and southwestern Montrose County; and 3. West-central Montezuma County. There are outliers in San Juan County, Utah and San Juan County, New Mexico, and a few isolated sites in southern Mesa County. The reasons for this three-cluster distribution are unknown. 52 records from Colorado at CNHP in 2017 Estimated 164 sites for this species in Colorado, from herbarium specimens and CNHP data. Three or four occurrences on the GMUG, all on the lower slopes of Battlement Mesa in Mesa County. Sclerocactus glaucus also occurs in the general area, but they grow in very different locations and habitats. EO No. EO No. Indiv. Indiv.

1794 1,125 11415 >100

2136 <100 13157 >70

2747 200 13158 70

3481 >500 13909 400

4612 >300 14169 >500

5259 35 14170 >30

5680 >100 14171 >50

5774 ±200 14172 >800

6193 600 14173 50

6599 >50 14318 >50

7000 500 14637 >100

7097 34 14768* 165

7661 40 14904 10

7737 200 14932 33

8278 >100 14933 18

8646 >50 14934 9

9805 >3,000 15279 >500

10873 >600 15283 >100

11038 85 Total >11,200

11398 >300 *Part on GMUG

Abundance and population trend on the GMUG. 38 occurrences were counted by CNHP in Colorado. Number of individuals ranges from 9 to >3,000, averaging about 300 per occurrence. The populations on the GMUG were estimated to total 165 in 2010 (author, CNHP). CNHP data do not separate the GMUG populations from off-Forest ones: there is only CNHP "occurrence" for eight populations (as much as 1.5 Km apart), four of which occur on the GMUG. Count of all eight populations was 78 in 2007; count of the four GMUG populations was 84 in 2010. This indicates that population numbers on the GMUG are at least stable, but remain small. Habitat. Sandstone ledges and rim-rock, with piñon-juniper or saltbush (CNHP, Ackerfield 2015). At the GMUG sites, benches and cliff tops of sandstone from Wasatch Formation, under junipers. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Populations on the GMUG are within the Piñon-Juniper Woodland ecosystem. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The National Forest on the lower slopes of Battlement Mesa is currently managed under prescription 5A – “Big Game Winter Range in Non-Forested Areas.” The area around the populations has not been grazed by livestock for several decades. The principal disturbance on these benches is the large mule deer population in the area, driven up by development of their former winter ranges in the lower valleys to the west. Hoof action by the deer churns the soil; I noticed that Astragalus naturitensis plants in this area only occurred where the deer could not go because of low branches of junipers. There is some illegal off-road vehicle use in this area, but the vehicles are naturally limited from the benches where the species occurs due to cliffs and tree density. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in both the San Juan Mountains and the BLM portion of its range due to the species’ dependence on seasonal moisture, short seed dispersal distances, preference for a specific geologic substrate, the presence of natural and anthropogenic barriers within its range, which may restrict movement of the species, and dependence on Rhizobium bacteria to fix nitrogen (Handwerk et al. 2014). Population numbers are small and habitat on the National Forest is limited. As recognized by CNHP, populations on the National Forest are part of a larger population complex that occurs on adjacent BLM and private lands. To contribute to the viability of the species, the Forest should work with BLM and private landowners to provide undisturbed soil on piñon-juniper benches on the lower slopes of Battlement Mesa. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 18, 2016; revised May 25, 2017.

Astragalus wetherillii (Wetherill's milkvetch) Astragalus wetherillii M. E. Jones (ASWE2) Common name(s): Wetherill's milkvetch. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Ranked SH in Utah. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Barneby 1964, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). At one time, was listed as Sensitive Species by Colorado Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region; it has been dropped from both lists. Distribution. Endemic to western Colorado and adjacent Utah. In Colorado, in Delta, Garfield, Moffat, Montrose, Ouray, Rio Blanco, and San Miguel Counties. 41 records for Colorado at CNHP. Four or five GMUG sites, all in the southern Uncompahgre Plateau. EST. EST.

EO CO. POP. EO CO. POP. 556 MTR 6468 GAR 824 MES 50 6819 MES 100 1127 GAR 150 7376 GAR 300 1430 MOF 7721 GAR 1563 MTR 7915 GAR 150 1871 MTR 150 8001 GAR 10 1903 MES 8513 GAR 1,000 1904 OUR 1,000 8518 DL 50 1918 GAR 50 8690 MES 25 2246 MTR 200 8691 MES 500

2824 OUR 1,000 8818 GAR 2,000 3108 OUR 9917 GAR 50 3607 SAM 9958 MOF 3921 MTR 300 10209 GAR 3,000

4711 GAR 10661 MTR 50 4800 MES 11061 SAM 25 4804 MES 100 13565 MES 100 4828 GAR 300 New SAM 500 5238 MTR New SAM 1,000 5389 MTR Total 14,770

5691 GAR 600 5878 GAR 500 6003 GAR 1,500

6305 MTR 10 Abundance and population trend. 77 herbarium specimens, many populations large. Decker (2005) lists 50 sites. Four GMUG populations have been estimated at 100, 500, 350, and 650 plants. Explicit trend data is lacking, but most of the records are from chance occurrences; as far as known, there have been no searches specifically for this species. Habitat. “The characteristic habitat of Astragalus wetherillii is on open sites on eroding slopes and washes” (Decker 2005). Canyon sides, benches, flats, open or partially shaded, sandy or stony soils derived from shale or sandstone, with piñon-juniper, sagebrush, saltbush, or ponderosa pine, 5,200–7,700 ft elevation. The sites on the GMUG are in piñon-juniper or lower-elevation ponderosa pine stands, in washes or drainage channels, on sandstone rimrock, or in recently burned areas. The plants seem to do better in disturbed areas, in areas of recent or active erosion. At three GMUG sites, the plants were sprouting vigorously after recent wildfire. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Ponderosa Pine Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Short-lived perennial herbaceous plants “with a slender taproot, and up to ten stems arising from a superficial root-crown” (Decker 2005). The plants are fairly tolerant to trampling, are apparently not palatable to herbivores, and are tolerant of disturbance – even preferring it. On several sites I have observed copious sprouting after wildfire. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Two sites on the GMUG are managed to emphasize big game winter range. The other two or three sites are assigned to timber management emphasis, but they burned in a recent wildfire; as mentioned above, the wildfire stimulated copious growth and re-sprouting of Astragalus wetherillii plants. BLM managers have noted that the species seems to prefer at least some level of disturbance. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Open sandstone or shale slopes with some disturbance, in the piñon-juniper and sagebrush zones. This species is considered to be Presumed Stable (with unspecified confidence) in the face of climate change in the San Juan Mountains based on the species habitat preference for warmer, arid climates, lack of restriction to specific geologic substrates and presumed pollinator versatility (Handwerk et al. 2014). Pinyon-juniper woodlands are likely to increase with climate change. Climate models project decreased summer precipitation and increased summer temperatures. The Forest Service's fire prevention in the twentieth century could be the reason for its relative lack of abundance on the National Forest. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 29, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Besseya ritteriana (Ritter's coraldrops) Besseya ritteriana (Eastwood) Rydberg (BERI) Synthyris ritteriana Eastwood Common name(s): Ritter's coraldrops. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3G4/S3S4, Watchlisted Only. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3S4 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all Colorado botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). GMUG Sites County No. Sites La Plata 16 Ouray 10 10 San Juan 10 Dolores 9 Montezuma 8 San Miguel 4 4 Saguache 3 1 Hinsdale 2 Conejos 1

Gunnison 1 Total 64 15

Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel, La Plata, Gunnison, Montrose, San Juan, Ouray, Saguache, and Conejos Counties. To be expected in Mineral County

as well. There are 148 herbarium specimens in local herbaria, representing 64 separate sites. Fifteen sites on the GMUG, most common in the mountains above Ouray, west to Lizard Head Pass. Abundance and population trend. “Field surveys by Colorado Natural Heritage Program staff have found it to be very common from 10,000-12,000 ft. in [high Subalpine] meadows” (NatureServe). This species is no longer tracked by CNHP, probably as a result of its abundance in the San Juan Mountains. Most records find it healthy, with apparently stable populations. Habitat. High mountains, upper subalpine or lower alpine, meadows, stream sides, 10,000 – 13,000 ft elevation. “It is often found in eroded openings with little competition from other plants” (NatureServe). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Montane-Subalpine Grasslands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Plants of this species are herbaceous perennials, apparently able to occupy sites with well-developed communities as well as sites in earlier seral stages within its habitat. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Some of these sites are grazed by domestic sheep; there is no evidence, however, of any effects by grazing on this species. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Thurber fescue grasslands, Colorado mountain grasslands, Alpine Uplands. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. However, the range of these plants extends into the subalpine, so climate change impacts alone do no constitute substantial concern for long-term persistence of this species. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 19, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Botrychium lineare (narrowleaf grapefern)

Botrychium lineare W. H. Wagner (BOLI7) “Botrychium campestre W. H. Wagner and Farrar var. lineare (W. H. Wagner)” (unpublished). Common name(s): narrowleaf grapefern Rank (CNHP 1/2016): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S2S3 Just a few years ago this species was thought to be a lot rarer, and was even a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service finally (2007) recognized the “danger” of such a course in this group, and dropped the candidate status, saying “… There is insufficient information to adequately describe suitable habitat for the species, or to fully understand its biological vulnerability to potential threat factors. … We have no information that indicates that any of the known populations constitute a significant portion of the range or that there is any portion of its range where the species might be locally threatened”. The difficulties of detection and identification are great, and the lack of well-defined habitat doesn’t help. Taxonomy. This species and its relatives have been subject to several different taxonomic treatments in past decades, finally culminating with the stellar work of Farrar and Popovich (2012). Unfortunately, CNHP doesn’t follow Farrar and Popovich’s work yet, because several of the name combinations have not been published. This would be called “Botrychium campestre var. lineare” (unpublished) in their treatment (in Weber and Wittmann 2012; also in Ackerfield 2015).

Distribution. Very poorly understood. Alaska (S1), California (S1), Colorado (S2S3), Idaho (SH), Minnesota (SNR), Montana (S1S2), Nevada (SNR), Oregon (S1), South Dakota (S1), Utah (S1),

Washington (S1), Wyoming (S1), Alberta (S1), British Columbia (S1), New Brunswick (SH), Quebec (S1), Yukon Territory (S1). CNHP has six locations in Colorado, in Grand, Boulder, Clear Creek, Lake, and El Paso counties (CNHP must know of more, because of S2S3 rank). In addition, there are at least three locations in Chaffee County near Monarch Pass. There are two known locations on the GMUG, one in Taylor Park on a subalpine road-cut and the other in the alpine north of Crested Butte, both in Gunnison County. As expressed in the USFWS quote above, we have only a faint glimpse of distribution or abundance. Abundance and population trend. Very poorly known. At one of the largest known populations, on Pikes Peak, number of individuals seen varies widely from year to year, probably because the plants are mostly underground. In most of the “sites” (see Habitat below) Botrychium lineare occurs sparsely, intermixed with plants of two or more other Botrychium species. There are few botanists with sufficient specialized training and experience to detect this species, and those that can often take many hours to locate a possible match. Identification may take hours to days longer; that has been improved considerably by Farrar and Popovich’s (2012) work. Knowledgeable botanists correctly caution against collecting underground parts of Botrychium, especially rare species, which means there aren’t many herbarium specimens – and observations are dependent heavily on the quality of the observer. On the GMUG, so far about ten stems have been observed in two sites. Habitat. “Local, in open meadows and on rocky slopes, bare soil roadsides and earthen dams, mostly Subalpine” (Farrar and Popovich 2012). Sites that have occasional subsurface water, but have been disturbed in the past, usually with some shade (for the very small plants). At one GMUG site, Botrychium lineare occurs on an old road cut in the Subalpine zone, associated with (in the shade of) Senecio atratus. The road is heavily traveled. The soil of the road cut is continually moving and eroding, but the cut has not been maintained in some years. Of course, these “habitats” are very abundant, but for unknown reasons few of them have any Botrychium in them. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Openings in Spruce-Fir Forests, Disturbed areas in Sagebrush. Moist, lightly disturbed sites, often in the shade of grasses or forbs. Probably mapped as Spruce-Fir Forest or Alpine Uplands – actual habitat is limited by unknown factors. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. As in all fern-allies, the above-ground portion of the plant is the sporophyte, with the gametophyte underground. Spores are very small and conceptually could travel widely by wind and water. Ecological functions, demographics, and population structure unknown. Most occurrences of Botrychium lineare in Colorado are middle Subalpine to lower Alpine. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Effects of current management unknown, although paving of the Cottonwood Pass Road would likely cause the population of the species on the GMUG to drop markedly. This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 9, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Botrychium paradoxum (peculiar moonwort) Botrychium paradoxum W. H. Wagner (BOPA9) Common name(s): peculiar moonwort. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3G4/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming (although NatureServe’s map shows them unranked in those states), S3 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3G4/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists as a species, although described as late as 1981 (Wagner and Wagner 1981-1993, Farrar 2006, Farrar and Popovich 2012, Ackerfield 2015). There is some indication that the one Colorado population may belong to a different species. Distribution. British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan; south to Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming, California, Utah, and Colorado. In Colorado, one record, in Gunnison County, on the GMUG.

Abundance and population trend. At the GMUG site, 20-25 plants counted at last visit. Population seems stable over a few years. However, there is much habitat to be searched for Botrychium

species. The plants are “difficult to detect because the plants are often hidden under other vegetation” (Washington Natural Heritage Program 2003). Habitat. Open, moist meadows (Wagner and Wagner 1993, Farrar 2006) or in spruce, lodgepole pine, and wet western red cedar forests (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012). “Wyoming populations are at willow thicket margins, stream banks and wetland margins in open valley bottoms and headwaters, and in openings in Pinus contorta woodland” (Heidel and Fertig 2015). GMUG population is in an open, rocky slope in the high subalpine zone, adjacent to an Engelmann spruce forest. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Moist meadows in Montane Sub-Alpine Grasslands, Spruce-Fir Forest, Alpine Uplands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Poorly known for all species of Botrychium. The species often grow together. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG population grows in a ski run that is not very commonly used, but it is groomed in winter season. No effects of this management/activity have been noted. Eventually the spruce beetle is likely to impact the adjacent spruce stand; unknown what effects this will have on the population of Botrychium paradoxum. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin owing to its proximity to spruce fir forests (increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons) and alpine ecosystems (likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover (Neely et al. 2011). Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Farrar, Donald R. 2006. Systematics of moonworts, Botrychium Subgenus Botrychium. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University. Published online at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~herbarium/botrychium/Moonwort-Systematics-June- 06.pdf Farrar, Donald R.; and Steve J. Popovich. 2012. Ophioglossaceae. Pp. 23-34 in Weber, William A.; and Ronald C. Wittmann. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Heidel, Bonnie; and Walter Fertig. 2015. State species account: Botrychium paradoxum. Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 3 pp.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Peculiar Moonwort — Botrychium paradoxum. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on December 7, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PPOPH010J0 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Wagner, Warren H. Jr., and Florence S. Wagner. 1981. New species of moonworts, Botrychium subg. Botrychium (Ophioglossaceae) from North America. American Fern Journal 71(1):20-30. Wagner, Warren H. Jr., and Florence S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae C. Agardh. Pp. 85-106 in Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Field guide to selected rare plants of Washington.

Botrychium pinnatum (northern moonwort) Botrychium pinnatum H. St. John (BOPI) Common name(s): northern moonwort. Rank (CNHP 2017): G4?/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah and Arizona, S2 in Idaho, S3 in Montana. Not Ranked in Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists (Wagner 1993, Farrar and Popovich 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwester Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Clear Creek, Conejos, Dolores, Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Mineral, San Juan, and Summit Counties. Eleven records from Colorado at CNHP. Four sites on the GMUG. No.

EO Plants

1168 ±50

2819 170

3961* ±5

4983* >200

5303 12

6568 1

9469 ±75

9798* 1

12176 ±100

13429 ±100

Total >710

*. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. Counts have been made on ten Colorado “populations,” ranging from one to several hundred; typically small. Habitat. In Colorado, subalpine meadows, rocky slopes, gravel pits, old mine tailings piles, openings in spruce-fir forest; “in mesic forest openings and near seepage areas in the mountains” (Farrar and Popovich 2012), 10,000–12,000 ft elevation. On the GMUG, openings in spruce-fir-aspen forest, sometimes disturbed (ski trail), with mosses and strawberry, and old gravel pits, 9,800- 11,400 ft. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Spruce-Fir Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small fern- like plants, reproducing by spores. Like most moonworts, difficult to detect and inventory, takes a lot of time and experience. Population structure and demographics completely unknown and mysterious. Habitats usually have been disturbed in the past, then the disturbance has abated. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites is managed to maintain livestock forage, currently grazed by domestic sheep. One site is managed for semi- primitive motorized recreation; this is an isolated site that is inaccessible to off-road vehicles, so with little effects. Two sites are managed to emphasize skiing, in areas disturbed by ski area operations; there may be effects, but none were noted in field investigations. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Uncertain, because of indeterminate, general habitat, with limitations on growth of this species completely unknown. This species is known from only 4 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains due to restriction to somewhat cool or cold environments, potential loss of habitat due to sedimentation resulting from timber harvest or forest fires, and mycorrhizae requirement for establishment (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 30, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Farrar, Donald R.; and Steve J. Popovich. 2012. Ophioglossaceae. Pp. 23-34 in Weber, William A.; and Ronald C. Wittmann. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Wagner, Warren H. Jr., and Florence S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae C. Agardh. Pp. 85-106 in Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp.

Botrychium simplex (little grapefern, least grape-fern, least moonwort) Botrychium simplex E. Hitchcock (BOSI) Common name(s): little grapefern, least grape-fern, least moonwort. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah, S2 in Montana and Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists. (Wagner 1993, Farrar and Popovich 2012). Both Farrar and Popovich (2012) and Ackerfield (2015) have two varieties under this species: a. Botrychium simplex E. Hitchcock var. simplex. Distributed statewide. b. Botrychium simplex E. Hitchcock var. compositum (Lasch) Milde. Known from near Wolf Creek Pass (Mineral Co.) and in northern Wyoming. The plants in and near the GMUG are var. simplex. Distribution. B. simplex distributed in Northwest Territories, British Columbia across Canada to Quebec and Newfoundland, south to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California; the Dakotas; eastern United States. In Colorado in Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Gilpin, Grand, Hinsdale, Summit, and Teller Counties. 25-30 sites in Colorado from herbarium specimens. Fourteen records from Colorado at CNHP. Three sites on the GMUG. EO No.

Plants 3299 12 5077 10 5423 50 5425 5 5699 ±50 13521 10 13691 2 13692 4 13694 25 Total 168

Abundance and population trend. “Infrequent” (Farrar and Popovich 2012). Nine Colorado populations have been counted; they are small, average 18. These are small plants, difficult to detect. Very poorly known. Botrychium simplex occurs sparsely, intermixed with plants of two or more other Botrychium species. There are few botanists with sufficient specialized training and experience to detect this species, and those that can often take many hours to locate a possible match. Identification may take hours to days longer; that has been improved considerably by Farrar and Popovich’s (2012) work. Knowledgeable botanists correctly caution against collecting underground parts of Botrychium, especially rare species, which means there aren’t many herbarium specimens – and observations are dependent heavily on the quality of the observer. Trend data unavailable. Habitat. In Colorado, “in forest seeps and streamside meadows, mostly subalpine” (Farrar and Popovich 2012), 8,500–12,600 ft elevation. On the GMUG, alpine tundra, avalanche meadows, openings in spruce-fir forest, 10,600-12,400 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Alpine Uplands, openings in Spruce-Fir Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. As in all fern-allies, the above-ground portion of the plant is the sporophyte, with the gametophyte underground. Spores are very small and conceptually could travel widely by wind and water. Ecological functions, demographics, and population structure unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG site is within a wilderness area. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown. This species is known from only 3 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species,

a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the same areas due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely e al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 28, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Farrar, Donald R.; and Steve J. Popovich. 2012. Ophioglossaceae. Pp. 23-34 in Weber, William A.; and Ronald C. Wittmann. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Wagner, Warren H. Jr., and Florence S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae C. Agardh. Pp. 85-106 in Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp.

Botrychium echo (reflected grapefern) 1. Species: Botrychium echo reflected grapefern

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of bog stitchwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4/S3S4

CNHP G4/S3S4 Between Vulnerable and Apparently Stable in Colorado – Watch listed only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Botrychium echo as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 4 occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 2003 on the old monarch pass road. None of these occurrences have population or trend data. This species is known from around 100 records total for Colorado and is a 4-corners endemic. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 4 years

Year Last Observed 2003

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in a subalpine meadow with scattered Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine between 9500 and 11,700 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystems: Montane-Subalpine Grasslands

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species is known from only 4 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and/or isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered Moderately Vulnerable (medium confidence) to climate change in the Gunnison Basin (Neely et al 2011). The spruce beetle die off could impact this species when it grows near those trees. There are no known management impacts to this species on the GMUG. Many Botrychium species capitalize on the open spaces created with natural and artificial disturbance. However, it is unknown if this species follows suit.

NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

Botrychium hesperium (western moonwort) 1. Species: Botrychium hesperium western moonwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of western moonwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4/S3

CNHP G4/S3 Vulnerable in Colorado – Watch listed only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Botrychium hesperium as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]:

This species is known from 2 occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 2012 on the Grand Mesa and on the old monarch pass road. None of these occurrences have population or trend data. This species is known from around 60 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG on a rocky subalpine ridge and in alpine/subalpine meadow with scattered Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine between 8500 and 11,500 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands, Subalpine-Montane Grasslands

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species is known from only 2 occurrences on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine portion of this species’ habitat is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin (Neely et al 2011). Additionally the spruce beetle die off could impact this species when it grows near those trees. Many Botrychium species capitalize on the open spaces created with natural and artificial disturbance. However, it is unknown if this species follows suit. There are no known management impacts to this species on the GMUG.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum (lanceleaf grapefern) 1. Species: Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum lanceleaf grapefern

CNHP G5T4/S3 Vulnerable in Colorado – Watch listed only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum as valid, Ackerfield and Weber and Wittmann have this taxa as a subspecies rather than a variety (subspecies are a geographic or habitat distinction (where they grow), varieties are a morphological distinction (how they look)).

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 2 occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 2004 on the old monarch pass road and in the La Garita Wilderness along Mineral Creek. None of these occurrences have population or trend data. This species is known from around 45 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2004

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in spruce forests between 10,760 and 11,600 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Spruce-Fir Forests.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species is known from only 2 occurrences on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. Analysis of the 2017 NAIP aerial imagery of the spruce forests at the Mineral Creek occurrence of this species shows that trees have already begun to die, but the Monarch Pass trees have not. A loss of overstory canopy is likely to be detrimental to this species, though actual impacts are unknown. Many Botrychium species capitalize on the open spaces created with natural and artificial disturbance. However, it is unknown if this species follows suit. The spruce fir habitat of this species is considered to be moderately vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change (Neely et al. 2011). There are no known management impacts to this species on the GMUG.

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort 1. Species: Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Mingan moonwort

Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4G5/S3

CNHP G5/S3 Vulnerable in Colorado – Watch listed only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Botrychium minganense as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 3 occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 1999 on an abandoned road in spruce fir forests, all 3 occurrences are found along active or abandoned roads 1 along a road by the Middle Fork of the Cimarron River, another along a road by the Little Cimarron River, and one in a road cut along Cottonwood Pass Road. None of these occurrences have population, trend, or threat data. This species is known from around 73 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 3 years

Year Last Observed 1999

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in roadcuts and abandoned roads in spruce forests between 9,200 and 11,350 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystems: Spruce-Fir Forest.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species is known from only 3 occurrences on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. Analysis of the 2017 NAIP aerial imagery of the spruce forests at the 2 Cimarron River area occurrence of this species shows some trees have already begun to die, but the Cottonwood Pass trees have not. A loss of overstory canopy is likely to be detrimental to this species, but it is clear that this species can capitalize on some disturbance, although how much, how long ago, and at what intensity is unknown. Many Botrychium species capitalize on the open spaces created with natural and artificial disturbance and it appears that this species follows suit. This species is considered Moderately Vulnerable (medium

confidence) to climate change in the Gunnison Basin (Neely et al 2011). The spruce fir habitat of this species is considered to be moderately vulnerable (low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change (Neely et al 2011). There are no known management impacts to this species on the GMUG.

Braya glabella (smooth northern-rockcress) Braya glabella Richardson (BRGL) Common name(s): smooth northern-rockcress, smooth rockcress, arctic braya. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a taxon by all botanists (Harris 1985-2010). Our plants are Braya glabella ssp. glabella (Ackerfield 2015); Weber and Wittmann (2012) as Braya glabella. No. EO Plants 580* 190 2604 5 3932† >200 9197* 80 15721 5

Total >480 *. GMUG site; †. Part on GMUG

Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest territories, Nunavut, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta; disjunct in Wyoming and Colorado. In Colorado, in Chaffee, Gunnison, Lake, and Pitkin Counties. Eight records from Colorado at CNHP. Moore and others (2006) list nine occurrences in Colorado. Five sites on the GMUG. Often occurs with Braya humilis, but in such sites B. humilis is usually less abundant; sometimes the two species are difficult to tell apart. Abundance and population trend. Four Colorado populations have been counted, mostly of moderate size. Habitat. Rocky alpine slopes and ridges, frost scars, alpine talus slopes, sometimes in areas disturbed by old mining activities, 11,500–12,800 ft elevation. Almost always on limestone, often Leadville Limestone, or dolomite derived from it. “Barren and disturbed calcareous substrates …, partially vegetated and less disturbed calcareous soils, gravel soils, talus, scree, and solifluction lobes … [on] ridge tops, saddles, and steep slopes” (Moore and others 2006). On the GMUG, rocky alpine slopes, soils derived from limestone or dolomite, 12,000-12,500, sometimes with old, light disturbance (edges of four-wheel-drive road; old mine dumps). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands; Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants that occupy small microsites of natural disturbance, or of long-past disturbance. Populations, though often small, usually show a range of size classes, inferred to age classes. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Four GMUG sites are in areas managed to emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities. But for two of these sites, the populations are on steep and rocky ridges, inaccessible to illegal off-road vehicle use. A third site in the same management area has 4WD roads nearby, and there are a number of (illegal) user-created motorcycle trails in the area. A fourth site in the same management area is near to old mining roads that are sometimes used by recreationists, but the site is on a rocky ridge, mostly inaccessible to (illegal) off-road motorized activity. The fifth site is within the Fossil Ridge Management Area, which is managed as wilderness. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable and undisturbed alpine slopes and ridges, especially where substrate is limestone. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on restriction to cold environments, dependence on ice and snow, and restriction to calcareous substrates (Neely et al. 2011).

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 30, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Harris, James G. 1985. A revision of the genus Braya (Cruciferae) in North America. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 250 pp. Harris, James G. 2010. Braya Sternberg and Hoppe. In Flora of North America 7:546-551. Moore, Lynn; and Sandy Friedley. 2006. Aster alpinus L. var. vierhapperi (Onno) Cronquist (Verhapper’s aster): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 40 pp. Published online. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Braya humilis (alpine braya) Neotorularia humilis (C.A. Mey.) Hedge & J. Léonard Braya humilis (C. A. Meyer ) B. L. Robinson (BRHU) Braya humilis (C. A. Meyer) B. L. Robinson ssp. ventosa Rollins Common name(s): low northern-rockcress, low braya, alpine braya. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Harris 1985-2010, Warwick and others 2004, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Weber and Wittmann (2012) continue to use B. humilis ssp. ventosa, though that has been synonymized under B. humilis ssp. humilis (Harris 2010, Ackerfield 2015). When the first populations of this species were discovered in Colorado, they were given the name Braya humilis ssp. ventosa. In a monograph of the genus, Harris (1985) found that variation in the Colorado (and Wyoming) plants fit with plants in the Arctic, and so ssp. ventosa became a synonym of Braya humilis ssp. humilis (Harris 2010). “Attempting to segregate most morphological forms of Braya humilis into logical infraspecific taxa is an exercise in futility. Populations that appear distinctive in the field almost always blur imperceptibly into the larger subsp. humilis continuum when compared with other populations from across the range of distribution” (Harris 2010). For the first 25 years or so after its Colorado discovery, known from only one population of in the Southern Rocky Mountains, within the Pike National Forest (Neely and Carpenter 1986). A

great deal of work went into identification and status of this one site, and protection of it. With the discovery of other sites in Colorado and Wyoming, some plants were identified to Braya glabella Richardson. Braya humilis and Braya glabella can be distinguished with some difficulty; they occupy similar habitats and sometimes grow together. EO Plants 106 ±950 123* 124* 939 10 1467 33 2076 366 2424 40 2965* 30 5182 1,160 6116* 40 6729* 125

7494* 31 8342* >500 9240* 125 9969 10545 75 11390* 40 13714 50 Total >3,575 *. GMUG site. Distribution. Alaska to Greenland, south to British Columbia, Montana, Alberta, and Vermont; disjunct in northwestern Wyoming and central Colorado; east and central Asia. In Colorado, in Gunnison, Chaffee, Lake, Park, and Summit Counties. Often occurs with Braya glabella, but in such sites B. humilis is usually less abundant. Abundance and population trend. CNHP has eighteen records in Colorado. Population sizes vary from ten to over 1,000, averaging 255. The six GMUG populations counted range 30–500. All of these records are over twenty years old, and few populations have been re-counted; none on the GMUG. There are a few other calcareous alpine sites that remain to be searched. This remains a rare species in Colorado. Habitat. Middle alpine slopes, solifluction lobes, and small breaks in turf communities, mostly late- snowmelt sites, sites with some natural erosion or erosion from long-past disturbances, 11,600 – 13,200 ft elevation. Often found growing in or near old disused road beds. Often soils derived from Leadville Limestone or dolomite derived from it. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands.

Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants that occupy small microsites of natural disturbance, or of long-past disturbance. Populations, though often small, usually show a range of size classes, inferred to age classes. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Several sites have been negatively affected by off-road and off-trail vehicles. Four of the populations on the GMUG are within the Fossil Ridge Special Management Area, managed as wilderness, away from roads and trails. The populations near Cumberland Pass, and on American Flag Mountain, are accessible to off-road vehicles, as they are in Forest Plan Management Area 2A – “Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities.” Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintenance of natural disturbance regimes in alpine ecosystems, especially on calcareous substrates. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains. The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011).

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Carex capitate (capitate sedge) Carex capitata L. (CACA13) Carex arctogena Harry Smith, Carex capitata L. ssp. arctogena (Harry Smith) Böcher

Common name(s): capitate sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5T4?/S1, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5T4?/S1 Taxonomy. Considered Carex capitata ssp. arctogena by most Colorado botanists until recently (Johnston 2001, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Flora of North America (Murray 2002) includes Carex arctogena as a synonym of Carex capitata. “In Scandinavia and Russia, Carex arctogena is distinguished from C. capitata on ecologic and morphologic grounds…. In North America the distinctions are not clear; two taxa can be observed, but there are also numerous specimens of uncertain determination. Separate status at some rank may be appropriate for the taxon “arctogena” in North America too … Carex capitata and C. arctogena differ in habitat (boreal mires versus alpine heaths), habit (mat-forming versus tufted), and morphology of the pistillate scales (much shorter and narrower than perigynia and with narrow hyaline margins versus as long as perigynia and with broad hyaline margins) and perigynia (beak gradually formed and smooth versus beak and may be sparingly serrulate)” (Murray 2002). Both taxa seem to be present in Colorado and on the GMUG, and Murray (2002) isn't very clear whether they should be separate species or subspecies; so they are considered together here. Weber and Wittmann (2012) describe Carex capitata ssp. arctogena, in upper subalpine and alpine peat fens. Ackerfield (2015) describes Carex capitata only, without mentioning arctogena. NatureServe allows only ssp. arctogena in Colorado; but Colorado specimens and records seem to include both subspecies. It seems inconsistent that the whole species would be Not Ranked in Colorado, yet the only subspecies in Colorado would be ranked S1.

NatureServe distribution maps of Carex capitata: Left, whole species. Middle, ssp. capitata. Right, ssp. arctogena.

Not Ranked or Under Review (brown); S5 (dark green), S4 (light green), S3 (yellow), S2 (orange), S1 (red). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon through most Canadian provinces except Nova Scotia; western United States in Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico; Scandinavia, Russia. In Colorado in Grand, Clear Creek, Hinsdale, Ouray, Lake, Park, and San Juan Counties. Most Colorado specimens are chance occurrences; as far as known, no one has searched for the species in Colorado. In northwestern Wyoming, where floristic inventories have been fairly intensive, there have been over 70 locations discovered in the last several decades. On the GMUG in three sites in Hinsdale County and one in Ouray County, two of these are represented by herbarium specimens (both on moist tundra slopes in Hinsdale County at 12,300–12,500 ft). One GMUG location in Hinsdale County and the one in Ouray County are from fens at 11,900–12,000 ft, inventoried as part of the fen inventory (Johnston and others 2012). These seem to be capitata as described by Murray (2002). CACA13 Site CACA13

Site County Cover Acres area, m²

WFS331 Ouray 10% 14.1 5,706

WFS448 Hinsdale 30% 41.9 50,869 Two herbarium specimens from the GMUG in Hinsdale County are on alpine tundra at 12,300- 12,500 ft, and lists Salix reticulata, Castilleja occidentalis, Packera werneriaefolia, Silene acaulis. Bistorta vivipara, and Chionophila jamesii as associates – none of these wetland plants. This seems to be arctogena as described by Murray (2002). The other herbarium specimen is apparently from a fen at 11,800 ft, seeming to belong to capitata as described by Murray (2002).

Abundance and population trend. Undetermined. Only one Colorado record in CNHP; this population (Clear Creek County) has been counted, at approximately 100 plants. The two fen occurrences described above show significant cover for Carex capitata, so these populations probably have at least several hundred plants each. Much more potential habitat needs to be searched before abundance and trend can be determined.

Habitat. In Colorado, upper subalpine and alpine wetlands and seeps; wet to moist alpine meadows and solifluction lobes, 11,100–12,500 ft. There do seem to be two different habitats On the GMUG, subalpine and alpine fens and moist alpine tundra, 11,200-12,500 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens; Alpine Uplands. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites is managed as semi- primitive wilderness (Management Area 8C, USDA Forest Service 1991), the other site has a livestock grazing emphasis (M. A. 6B). One of the fen sites described above is managed as semi- primitive non-motorized (M. A. 3A), the other as semi-primitive wilderness (M. A. 8C). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. High water tables and undisturbed conditions in fens and other wetlands. Undisturbed alpine tundra. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the same areas (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 20, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Johnston, Barry C.; Benjamin T. Stratton; Warren R. Young; Liane T. Mattson; John M. Almy; and Gay T. Austin. 2012. Inventory of fens in a large landscape of west-central Colorado. Delta, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. 208 pp. Murray, David F. 2002. Carex Linnaeus sect. Capituligerae Kükenthal. Pp. 569-570 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge) Carex diandra Schrank (CADI4) Common name(s): lesser panicled sedge. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Wyoming, S4 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists as a species (Hermann 1970, Cochrane 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon, through all of Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Midwestern and New England states; northern Europe, Russia. In Colorado in Boulder, Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Rio Blanco, Routt, Saguache, and San Juan Counties. 20-25 records in Colorado from herbarium specimens. Thirteen records from Colorado at CNHP; one of these as a plant community dominated by C. diandra in Boulder County. No CNHP records from the GMUG. One or two GMUG sites, from herbarium specimens. No. EO Plants 728 ±3,000 7480 100 13468 20 14702 ±3,000 14828 100 14829 1 14830 100 15650 250 Total 6,500

Abundance and population trend. Eight Colorado populations have been counted; sizes range from one to three thousand. No trend information available, and no GMUG populations have been counted. Habitat. In Colorado, lake margins, fens, floating peat mats, on logs in ponds, 8,880–9,300 ft elevation. In the GMUG, fens at 9,600-9,700 ft. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Densely tufted perennial sedge. Presumably propagating primarily by seed, pollinated by wind. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The two GMUG sites are in a management area that emphasizes livestock grazing, which is currently active. The whole area is open to off-

road vehicles, but so far there has been no sign of such, and access is partially blocked by terrain. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed fen wetlands. This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 3, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Cochrane, Thomas S. 2002. Carex Linnaeus sect. Heleoglochin. Pp. 278-281 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hermann, Frederick J. 1970. Manual of the Carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Basin. Agriculture Handbook No. 374, 397 pp. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex lasiocarpa Ehrhart (woollyfruit sedge) Carex lasiocarpa Ehrhart 1784 (CALA11) Common name(s): woollyfruit sedge. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species in Europe by all botanists since it was described, but recognized as occurring in the Rocky Mountains only for about 15 years. The plants are very similar in form and habitat to Carex pellita (that we used to call Carex lanuginosa), a very common wetland species (Johnston 2001). Ackerfield (2012) says that C. lasiocarpa does not occur in Colorado; Weber and Wittmann (2012) say C. lasiocarpa has recently been discovered in subalpine fens. Having seen both species in the field, I believe C. lasiocarpa is in Colorado, in some abundance.

GMUG CALA11 Site CALA11

SiteWFT453 Cover20% Acres20.2 16,349.3m² WFT467 80% 2.6 8,417.5 UCC014.4 40% 17.4 28,166.1 LCC001.1 30% 1.2 1,456.9 LCC001.2 50% 0.8 1,618.7 LCC001.3 20% 0.9 728.4 LCC002.1 60% 3.3 8,012.8 Total 64,749.7

Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Quebec, Labrador, and Newfoundland, south through all of Canada (except Nunavut) to California, Utah, Colorado, Illinois, and North Carolina. In Colorado, in Delta, Douglas, Elbert, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Lake, La Plata, Larimer, Mesa, Montezuma, Park, San Miguel, Teller, Weld, and Yuma Counties. Currently known from about fifty Colorado sites. Many botanists and others pass this by, assuming it is Carex pellita (called “Carex lanuginosa” until 2003). There are several known localities on the GMUG NF that were discovered by chance, and in each location, it would have been identified as Carex pellita until recently. Abundance and population trend. Known (so far) from six sites on the GMUG. It should be classed as a co-dominant indicator plant species in riparian areas and wetlands; CNHP has four records of the community type dominated by Carex lasiocarpa, in Boulder, Grand, and Jackson Counties. Eleven records of the species or community at CHNP. This is not an easy species to "count", because it is rhizomatous and often occurs intermixed with other rhizomatous sedges; canopy cover in various GMUG fens is shown in the table above. Habitat. Wetter microsites in riparian areas, and in wetlands and fens, in the mountains. Often occurs with Carex pellita. On the GMUG, wetlands and wetter riparian areas, often with standing water, 8,500-9,000 Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Only occurs with a high water table or in standing water, so a high water table is necessary for growth. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Overgrazing would have an impact, as well as off-road vehicle use in riparian areas and wetlands; ditching and flooding also would have an impact. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintain high water table in riparian areas and wetlands. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 20, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Carex leporinella (Sierra hare sedge) Carex leporinella Mackenzie (CALE9) Common name(s): Sierra hare sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2S3 in Wyoming, S2? in Utah, and S4 in Montana; Not Ranked in other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. All botanists accept this as a species (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015), although it is not very distinct from Carex phaeocephala. It is likely that previous field observations of C. phaeocephala are actually C. leporinella; perhaps also the other way around as well.

Distribution. Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. In Colorado in Delta, Rio Blanco, Gunnison, Routt, and San Juan Counties. There are no records at CHNP. Four locations on the GMUG, three of which are on edges of fens, growing on peat. The third location is an alpine meadow. Range of elevations on the GMUG 9,990–12,100 ft. Abundance and population trend. There are no population counts or estimates from any Colorado location, so abundance is difficult to assess. This species has only recently been detected in Colorado, formerly included in Carex phaeocephala, a much more common and widespread species. The only searches done in Colorado were limited to a few sites on the Grand Mesa where it was observed in 2012. Habitat. Middle to upper subalpine and lower alpine zones, a wide variety of habitats from open alpine meadows to rocky alpine slopes to seeps in spruce-fir forest to edges of fens. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Alpine Uplands Seeps in Spruce-Fir Forests. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Herbaceous perennial graminoid, forming a bunch, so presumably reproducing by seed. Little else is known about this species. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Unknown, except one of the fens by which it is growing on Grand Mesa has been mined for peat, which may have had an effect. Several of the sites are being impacted by ditching of wetlands and flooding of reservoirs; one of the sites has been impacted by ATV and other off-road off-trail vehicle use. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Vegetation and soils undisturbed on the edges of fens, and in alpine meadows. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 20, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex limosa L. (mud sedge) Carex limosa L. (CALI7) Common name(s): mud sedge. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S3 in Wyoming, S3? in Utah, and S3S4 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Hermann 1970, Ball 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon, through all of Canada, south to Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico; the Dakotas and Nebraska eastward; northern Europe and Asia. In Colorado, in Boulder, Conejos, Costilla, Delta, Eagle, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Park, Pitkin, Routt, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties. Nineteen records from Colorado at CNHP. There are 34 known sites on the GMUG. No. EO Plants 4765 ±300 5784 25,000 10244 ±100 13214 300 13711 >3,000 13712 300 14404 4,000 14838 ±300 15070 >3,000

Total 36,300

Abundance and population trend. Carex limosa was counted in nine CNHP sites; this species is difficult to count, because it is connected underground by rhizomes (Gage and Cooper 2006). Carex limosa was detected as part of three fen inventories on the GMUG, in 29 sites on the Grand Mesa and in the northern San Juan Mountains, as shown in the table below. Only the Grand Mesa inventory tried to sample every fen site, the others selected sites and subsites. Site Source County CALI7, Wetland, CALI7 No. Site Source County CALI7, Wetland, CALI7 No.

% ac d area e Plants f % ac d area e Plants f 3acr a MES 60.0 3.3 793 15,852 LstLK4 a DEL 15.0 29.9 1,817 36,335 Carlin1 a MES 60.0 1.6 382 7,638 McCu13 a DEL 75.0 9.6 2,923 58,454 Chipm3 a MES 10.0 3.7 148 2,969 McCu18 a DEL 18.0 9.6 701 14,029 Chipm4 a MES 75.0 3.7 1,113 22,266 Phen1 a MES 10.0 2.1 84 1,681 Coop2 a MES 10.0 4.6 185 3,695 Safe2c a DEL 75.0 10.6 3,216 64,322 Coop4 a MES 85.0 4.6 1,570 31,405 SkinH3 a DEL 80.0 13.6 4,396 87,910 Coyot3 a MES 80.0 35.4 11,467 229,338 Summ4 a MES 25.0 19.7 1,994 39,886 Gilig1 a MES 25.0 7.3 737 14,732 USM012.1 b SAM 0.5 2.3 5 93 Granb4 a DEL 80.0 7.8 2,533 50,652 USM013.1 b SAM 20.0 2.6 212 4,246 Horse1 a DEL 65.0 6.6 1,730 34,591 USM013.2 b SAM 1.0 2.6 11 212 Horse2 a DEL 65.0 6.6 1,730 34,591 USM013.5 b SAM 90.0 2.6 955 19,107 Horse6 a DEL 75.0 6.6 1,996 39,913 WFS363 c GUN 0.5 4.7 9 189 Leon2 a MES 85.0 6.1 2,084 41,684 WFS386 c GUN 60.0 9.6 2,328 46,555 Leona2 a MES 75.0 2.8 838 16,757 Wilso2 a MES 20.0 0.7 59 1,189 Leona3 a MES 70.0 2.8 782 15,639 Total 935,931 a. Austin 2008. b. Chimner and others 2010. c. Johnston and others 2012. d. Total area of the wetland, acres. e. Area covered by Carex limosa, m², assuming the measured percentage applies to 0.1 of the wetland. f. Number of Carex limosa plants, assuming twenty plants to 1 m² (500 cm²/plant). In addition, one site with Carex limosa dominant on the Grand Mesa was monitored three years. This site is on a floating peat mat in a fen; the floating mat takes up about a third of the 11 acres of the wetland. In 2007, Carex limosa covered 93% of the floating mat; in 2009, 88%; and in 2011, 91%. In 2011, there was a marked increase in sediment cover, which we attributed to dust-on-snow, since there was no other possible source (Painter and others 2007, Neff and others 2008). Habitat. “Carex limosa typically occurs in montane or subalpine peatlands, often as part of a floating mat community adjacent to an open water system …. Soils are consistently wet throughout the season, with the water table at or near the soil surface … in Colorado and Wyoming … at relatively high elevations” (Gage and Cooper 2006). In Colorado, fens and other wetlands, floating peat mats, 9,100–11,600 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small, perennial rhizomatous sedge, reproducing by seed or clonal expansion, forming highly interconnected root systems. The seed is capable of germinating after some time buried under a layer of peat (Gage and Cooper2006). “Because of the ability of C. limosa to reproduce asexually, genetic diversity within individual wetlands may be low, with one or a limited number of dominant genotypes present” (Gage and Cooper 2006). Effects on species and habitat by current management. A number of fens on the GMUG have been subject to hydrologic alteration, especially ditching, which results in lowering the water table in the fen. This leads to loss of habitat for Carex limosa and other fen-dependent species, and in extreme cases can lead to loss of the whole fen ecosystem (Austin 2008, Austin and Cooper 2015). Building a dam and turning the fen into a lake can also damage habitat for fen-dependent

plants. If there are pre-existing water rights, sometimes they take precedence over land use regulations or forest plans. Deterioration of conditions around a fen, or in its contributing watershed, can also negatively affect habitat in the fen itself. For example, improper grazing or trailing of animals or humans can lead to sediment deposition in the fen, which impedes peat formation and functioning, and eventually stops peat formation altogether; by that time all peat-forming plants such as Carex limosa are gone (Gage and Cooper 2006, Austin 2008). Road construction can cause considerable damage to fens, by disrupting natural water flows and increasing overland flow into fens. Illegal off-road vehicles can do considerable damage to fens with just a few passes, as the ruts function like small ditches (Gage and Cooper 2006). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Fens (especially those with floating peat mats) with stable, high water tables and undisturbed conditions, including their contributing watersheds. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Austin, Gay. 2008. Fens of Grand Mesa, Colorado: Characterization, impacts from human activities, and restoration. M. A. Thesis, Prescott College, Department of Environmental Studies, Prescott, AZ. 120 pp. Austin, Gay; and David J. Cooper. 2015. Persistence of high elevation fens in the Southern Rocky Mountains, on Grand Mesa, Colorado, U.S.A. Wetlands Ecology and Management. Published online on September 9, 2015. DOI 10.1007/s11273-015-9458-7. Ball, Peter W. 2002. Carex Linnaeus sect. Limosae (Hüffel) Meinshausen. Pp. 416-419 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Gage, Edward; and David J. Cooper. 2006. Carex limosa L. (mud sedge): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 50 pp. Published online. Hermann, Frederick J. 1970. Manual of the Carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Basin. Agriculture Handbook No. 374, 397 pp. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Neff, J. C.; A. P. Ballantyne; G. L. Farmer; N. M. Mahowald; J. L. Conroy; C. C. Landry; J. T. Overpeck; T. H. Painter; C. R. Lawrence; and R. L. Reynolds. 2008. Increasing eolian dust deposition in the western United States linked to human activity. Nature Geoscience 1:189-195. Painter, Thomas H.; Andrew P. Barrett; Christopher C. Landry; Jason C. Neff; Maureen P. Cassidy; Corey R. Lawrence; Kathleen E. McBride; and G. Lang Farmer. 2007. Impact of disturbed desert soils on duration of mountain snow cover. Geophysical Research Letters 34, 6 pp. doi:10.1029/2007GL030284 Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex livida (livid sedge) 1. Species: Carex livida (Livid Sedge)

CNHP S1 Known from 6 locations in Colorado, the occurrence on the GMUG is the first west of the continental divide in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest RFSS RFSS due to isolated and disjunct populations in Colorado (n=6) and Wyoming Service (n=1), some occurrences in Colorado known to be damaged by ditching, moose, recreation, roads, and logging.

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Accepted as a valid species by Flora of North America, Weber and Wittmann, Ackerfield, ITIS, and the USDA Plants National Database.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit: Two occurrences on the GMUG; one herbarium record from the BotCot fen found in 2003, and a 2015 observation on the Grand Mesa NF in a subalpine fen near Overland Reservoir. No count data exists for either GMUG occurrence, but a cursory observation by G. Austin (BLM) indicated there were around 10 culms (aboveground parts of sedges) at the Overland Reservoir site. Other occurrences in Colorado consist of at most, a hundred individuals. The species can dominate in the very small (50x50m in one case and .1 acre in another) areas where it occurs.

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2015

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions: Component of subalpine fen on the GMUG at 10,100 ft. Other locations in Colorado this species is found on the shoreline of fens, on floating mats, and often on wet hummocks. The hydrologic conditions that maintain fens are critical to this species, since it is found only in fens.

Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability, including Threats and Risk Factors: Known from a single occurrence on the GMUG, this population is small and isolated from other occurrences of this species. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011).

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Carex livida. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Carex livida treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017 Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

Carex nelsonii (Nelson’s sedge) Carex nelsonii Mackenzie (CANE3) Common name(s): Nelson's sedge. Rank (CNHP 2018): Not tracked Rank (NatureServe 2017): G3/S3, Ranked S2 in Utah and Wyoming, and S2? in Montana. Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists as a species (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). County Speci County Speci - - Boulder 7 La Plata 8 Chaffee 4 Lake 6 Clear Creek 32 Larimer 16 Conejos 2 Mesa 1* Custer 1 Mineral 1 Dolores 4 Montezum 3

Eagle 4 Park 3 El Paso 9 Pitkin 3

Gilpin 3 Rio Grande 1 Grand 1 Saguache 2* Gunnison 4* San Juan 21 Hinsdale 2* San Miguel 1* Jackson 3 Summit 6 Total 148

*.GMUG 10

Distribution. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. In Colorado, Boulder, Clear Creek, Custer, Dolores, Eagle, El Paso, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, La Plata, Lake, Larimer, Montezuma, Park, Pitkin, San Juan, and Summit Counties (COLO, RM, CS, Johnston 2001). On the GMUG, 12-15 records. Abundance and population trend. "Occasional or locally common in Colorado and at nearby sites in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, rare in Wyoming and Montana" (NatureServe 2017). No counts or estimates of abundance known for any GMUG populations. All of the records are herbarium specimens; no one has searched for this species on the GMUG. 148 herbarium specimens from Colorado, representing about 80 sites, of which 10 are on the GMUG. Habitat. Alpine snowmelt areas, solifluction lobes, moist sedge meadows, stream banks, and rocky slopes. 11,300–13,400 ft elevation. On the GMUG, open, moist to wet alpine-subalpine meadows, moist openings in spruce-fir forest, and alpine stream sides, 11,000-13,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Alpine Uplands, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh, moist openings in Spruce-Fir Forests. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Bunch or mat-forming perennial graminoid, with short rhizomes. Reproducing primarily by seed, not known if self-compatible. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Mostly poorly known, because locations not precisely known. A few GMUG populations accessible to off-road vehicles, but most are in wilderness or land managed as semi-primitive. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. High quality riparian areas, wet meadows, and stream sides in the subalpine and alpine zones. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 21, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Johnston, Barry C. 2001. Field guide to sedge species of the Rocky Mountain Region: The genus Carex in Colorado, Wyoming, western South Dakota, western Nebraska, and western Kansas. Publication R2-RR-01-03, 318 pp. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex perglobosa (globe sedge) 1. Species: Carex perglobosa globe sedge

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of globe sedge Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G3G4/SNR

CNHP S3 Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Carex perglobosa is accepted as valid by ITIS, the USDA Plants National Database, CNHP, NatureServe, Ackerfield, and Weber and Wittmann.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit: This species is not tracked by CNHP so the occurrence records of this species are from herbarium records where there are at least 15 records of globe sedge on the GMUG from various herbaria. This species is a regional endemic only occurring in Utah and Colorado. There are no population counts or trend data for this species in Colorado or on the GMUG.

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 >15 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions: The habitat for globe sedge is rocky alpine slopes and ridges from 11,000 – 13,500 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability, including Threats and Risk Factors: This species has a limited distribution and is a regional endemic. Known from more than 50 collections across Colorado and Utah. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Carex sartwellii (Sartwell’s sedge) Carex sartwellii Dewey (CASA8) Common name(s): Sartwell's sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Wyoming, S3S4 in Montana, S4 in Nebraska, not ranked in Kansas or South Dakota. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists (Reznicek and Catling 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Misidentification is suspected for high-elevation records in Colorado, including the GMUG ones. Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Quebec, south through Canada to Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. In Colorado in Weld, Larimer, Douglas, Teller, Jefferson, El Paso, Gunnison, Lake, and Ouray Counties. Thirteen known locations in Colorado, all from herbarium specimens. One GMUG location, from a recent herbarium specimen, identification not verified, but photographs of the specimen appear to be C. sartwellii. No records at CNHP, which indicates this species has been recently added and distribution has not been fully researched. Apparently no one has searched for this species on the GMUG.

Abundance and population trend. The records in piedmont wetlands and marshes along the east base of the Front Range would understandably be under some pressure from development. The GMUG specimen is imprecisely located (9,800–10,200 ft elevation, within a half-section), and without abundance estimates; it is uncertain whether the location is on the National Forest or private land within the town of Mount Crested Butte. There is a verified record just east of Gunnison at 7,700 ft in a streamside swamp, much more believable; another 1915 specimen, from Ouray, is probably from a lowland marsh below the National Forest. Habitat. “Wet prairies, sedge meadows, marshes, wet, open thickets, open swamps, stream, pond, and lakeshores, ditches, often in shallow water… an important wetland species in portions of the midwest and west, but becomes increasingly uncommon and local eastward. It forms large, loose clones” (Reznicek and Catling 2002).

Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. A tall, conspicuous, rhizomatous wetland sedge. Apparently dominant in piedmont wetlands in eastern Colorado, probably occasional to rare in marshes in mountain habitats. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The location of the specimen is in a heavily used area; if it is on the National Forest, it is near trails used by hikers and skiers and ATVs; if it is on private land, the stream has been developed as water source for the town and ski area. In either case, it is likely that this site is heavily impacted by human activity. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Needed to contribute to viability: high water tables and undisturbed conditions in swamp and marsh wetlands. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 21, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Carex scirpoidea (Canadian single-spike sedge) Carex scirpoidea Michaux (CASC10) Carex pseudoscirpoidea Rydberg, Carex scirpiformis Mackenzie Common name(s): northern singlespike sedge, bulrush sedge, Canadian single-spike sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S4 in Wyoming and Utah, S2 in New Mexico, S5 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Sometimes treated as two or three separate species (scirpoidea, pseudoscirpoidea, scirpiformis), now as several subspecies of Carex scirpoidea. Following the treatment in Flora of North America (Dunlop 2002), there are two subspecies in Colorado: a. Carex scirpoidea Michaux ssp. scirpoidea (including C. scirpiformis Mackenzie). Alaska and Yukon to Labrador and Newfoundland, through all of Canada to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Colorado; Michigan, New York, New England States; Scandinavia; eastern Siberia. b. Carex scirpoidea Michaux ssp. pseudoscirpoidea (Rydberg) D. A. Dunlop in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (Dunlop 2002). These two subspecies are fairly easily distinguished, since ssp. pseudoscirpoidea has long rhizomes and ssp. scirpoidea does not. But they are still very close, and Colorado specimens and

locations have generally not been segregated by subspecies; so they are combined here. Weber and Wittmann (2012) have both C. scirpoidea and C. pseudoscirpoidea. Ackerfield (2015) has C. scirpoidea, with the two subspecies listed above. Distribution. In Colorado, in Boulder, Chaffee, Conejos, Delta, Gunnison, Huerfano, Lake, La Plata, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Park, San Juan, Summit, and Saguache Counties. Eight occurrences in Colorado in CNHP records. Seven known locations on the GMUG; five of these are on Grand Mesa, in fens; one is in a wet alpine meadow and the other on a peaty lake margin, 10,100– 11,400 ft elevation.

Abundance and population trend. Only one CNHP occurrence has been counted, at about 40 individuals. No GMUG site has been counted, but various inventories measured canopy cover of Carex scirpoidea. The following table shows the plant community at the five fen sites. CASC10 Area of CASC10 area, Site No. Dominants Cover fen, ac m² 14754 CAAQ-DECE 0.1% 0.8 3.2 14752a ELQU2-CAAQ-CAUT 0.5% 11.1 224.6 14752b CASA12-SAPL2-CACA4 0.1% 35.4 143.3 14753 CAAQ-CAVE-CAUT 0.5% 7.5 151.8 WFG412 CAAQ-CAUT 0.5% 13.8 279.2 Total 802.1 Populations seem small. Trend is unknown. Habitat. In Colorado, fen wetlands, open willow carrs, peaty lake margins, and subalpine to lower alpine wet meadows, 9,700–12,200 ft. On the GMUG, in fens, on streamsides, on peaty lake margins, and in wet meadows, 10,150-12,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens, Montane-Subalpine Riparian Shrubland, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Bunch or mat-forming or rhizomatous perennial graminoid plants. Population structure and demographics unknown.

Effects on species and habitat by current management. Several of the fen sites are being impacted by off-road vehicles, animal trails (deer and elk) and cattle grazing. It is unknown what effects are on Carex scirpoidea, but its habitats are known to be sensitive. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintenance of high quality, undisturbed conditions in fen wetlands, wet subalpine-alpine meadows, and subalpine- alpine lake shores. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 21, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Carex stenoptila (small-winged sedge) Carex stenoptila F. J. Hermann (CAST4) Common name(s): riverbank sedge, small-winged sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Wyoming, S2? in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists (Mastrogiuseppe and others 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). However, this species belongs to Carex sect. Ovales, a large group of sedges that tend to look similar to one another, so misidentification is an issue. Distribution. Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. In Colorado in Hinsdale, Gunnison, Saguache, Las Animas, Huerfano, Summit, Routt, Park, Clear Creek, Boulder, Grand, Montrose, and Mineral Counties. Ten records at CNHP, all from herbarium specimens. Known from nine sites on the GMUG, all from herbarium specimens. One of these is the type locality for the species.

Abundance and population trend. No indication of population size or trend from any Colorado location. No one has searched for this species; it would be difficult since potential habitat is expansive and distinction from related species is mostly microscopic. "Threats and trends are unknown" (NatureServe). Habitat. In Colorado, dry to moist forest openings and meadows, mostly montane to lower subalpine zones, 8,000–9,300 ft elevation. These are very general habitats, without any apparent restrictions. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, possibly degraded Montane-Subalpine Riparian Shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. These are habitats grazed by cattle, elk, and deer, so there may be some impact to the species, but there are no recorded/observed impacts. Hermann (1970) does not report on this species’ palatability; it probably is at least somewhat palatable to herbivores. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat.

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 21, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Carex viridula (green sedge) Carex viridula Michaux (CAVI5) Carex oederi Retzius ssp. viridula (Michaux) Hultén, Carex oederi Retzius var. recterostrata (Bailey) Dorn Common name(s): little green sedge, green sedge. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. At one time, northern botanists called this Carex oederi Retzius ssp. viridula (Michaux) Hultén; and RM still considers this Carex oederi var. recterostrata. Flora of North America (Crins 2002) has it as a species, Carex viridula, with three subspecies; the Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah plants are all included in C. viridula ssp. viridula (Ackerfield 2015). Carex viridula is accepted by Weber and Wittmann (2012) and NatureServe. Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Labrador and Newfoundland, across all of Canada to California, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In Colorado in Gunnison, Grand, Jackson, La Plata, Park, San Juan, Routt, and Summit Counties. Three locations on the GMUG, two of these from fens sampled as part of various inventories. At one of these locations (Gunnison County), Hippochaete variegata, Kobresia simpiciuscula, and Trichophorum pumilum also occur. EO No. Indiv. 6633 50 6634 >1,200 11003* ±1,000 11585 >200 11731 10 13068 500 Total >3,000 *.Partly on GMUG

Abundance and population trend. Eleven records at CNHP, seven of which have been counted, average about 425. The population at the Gunnison County site was described as "abundant," estimated at 1,000. Trend data unknown.

This species is moderately difficult to count, since the vegetative parts appear similar to other sedge species. The two other GMUG sites (following table) must have several thousand plants: assuming 0.1 ac per site and ten plants per square meter, 72% cover means 2,900 plants and 68% means 2,750 plants. Only a small portion of the Gunnison County site is on NFS land; most of it is on private land within the Forest Boundary. Sample County CAVI5 Acres CAVI5

LCC004.1 La Plata Cover10% 0.763 acres0.076 LMC0001.4 San Juan 20% 2.575 0.515 CUN006.1 San Juan 1% 2.582 0.026 CUN006.2 San Juan 5% 2.540 0.127 WL05 Delta 44% 1.092 0.480 WL10 Delta* 72% 1.204 0.867 2008005062 San* 68% 1.430 0.972 Total 3.488

Habitat. In Colorado, fens (sometimes calcareous), peaty lakeshores, and stream banks, 7,700–

12,500 ft elevation. “Common in fens in the San Juan Mountains” (Weber and Wittmann 2012). The four sites on the GMUG are all fens, one of them documented as calcareous, the other three of uncertain pH. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Dominant to occasional perennial bunch graminoid, apparently preferring calcareous (high pH) fens and other wetlands. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The NFS portion of the Gunnison County site is adjacent to a heavily-used gravel road maintained by the county. This population is affected by dust from the road and road maintenance; the portion of the site on private land is grazed. The San Miguel County site is near an old, unused road, behind a locked gate, in an ungrazed area. The Delta County sites are away from roads, but are affected by illegal off-road vehicles and grazing. All three sites are used by mule deer and elk (and possibly moose). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. High water table and undisturbed conditions in wetlands, especially fens, especially calcareous fens. Viability concern for this species on the GMUG is moderately high, because of small number of populations, and rarity and vulnerability of its habitat. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised May 25, 2017.

Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Chionophila jamesii (Rocky Mountain snowlover) 1. Species: Chionophila jamesii Rocky Mountain snowlover

CNHP G4?/S3S4 Between Vulnerable and Apparently Secure in Colorado – Watch listed only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Chionophila jamesii as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from around a dozen occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 2015 in alpine tundra. None of these occurrences have population, trend, or threat data. This species is known from around 325 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 >12 years

Year Last Observed 2015

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected at least a dozen times on the GMUG, mostly on alpine tundra and rocky alpine areas at elevations above 11,000 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystems; Alpine Uplands; Rocky Slopes, Screes, and Cliffs

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Handwerk, J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Cirsium osterhoutii (Osterhout’s thistle) 1. Species: Cirsium osterhoutii Osterhout's thistle

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe GNR T2 Genus not ranked, but the subtaxa is imperiled at a global level. The T2 Ranking is a “must consider” ranking and is given by NatureServe due to its narrow endemism in Colorado and few occurrences. CNHP S2 Imperiled in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The USDA Plants National Database and Ackerfield recognize this species as Cirsium osterhoutii. The Flora of North America treatment has this species as Cirsium clavatum ssp. osterhoutii, a taxonomy that is shared with NatureServe and CNHP. However, Weber and Wittmann recognize no subtaxa of clavatum, and do not recognize C. osterhoutii.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit: This taxa (in whichever of its names) is a Colorado endemic. This species was collected 8 times in 2012 by Laurie Brummer (Univ of Wyoming) in 2012 on the Grand Mesa NF some of those collections were county records for Delta and Mesa counties. There are 6 records of this species at the Colorado State University Herbarium for the GMUG NFs. Although this species is fully tracked by CNHP there are no Element Occurrences for the species anywhere in Colorado. As a result there are no population data available for this species on the GMUG or anywhere else in Colorado. The population of Osterout’s thistle on the GMUG constitutes the majority of the known occurrences (13 of 25) and spatial distribution of this endemic species in Colorado making the continued viability of this species on the GMUG very important for the continued viability of the species as a whole. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 ≥13 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions: Osterhout’s thistle is found in Colorado from 9,500-13,000 feet in elevation in gravely and rocky open slopes, in open forests, subalpine meadows, and along streams. Brummer’s collections on the Grand Mesa are from subalpine meadows, small streams, and rocky ridges. Some of the meadow habitats had spruce- fir forests along the margins. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands, Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability, including Threats and Risk Factors: The population of Osterout’s thistle on the GMUG constitutes the majority of the known occurrences (13 of 25) and spatial distribution of this endemic species in Colorado. And as a result the conservation of this species on the GMUG plays a significant role in the maintenance of this species as a whole. NatureServe notes that this species and many other native thistles are impacted by bio-control for non-native thistles. Whether this threat operates on the GMUG is unknown. This species occupies too varied a habitat to make any accurate statements about its vulnerability to climate change.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

Figure 1 Screen Capture of Rocky Mountain Herbarium Collection map for Cisrium clavatum ssp osterhoutii

Figure 2 Screen capture of the Colorado State University Herbarium collection map of Cirsium osterhoutii

Cirsium perplexans (adobe hills thistle) Cirsium perplexans (Rydberg ) Petrak (CIPE5) Carduus perplexans Rydberg 1905 (type collected at Cimarron) Carduus vernalis Osterhout 1911 (type collected at De Beque) Common name(s): adobe thistle, adobe hills thistle. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2G3/S2S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Keil 2006, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose, and Ouray Counties. 36 records at CNHP. In 2002, this species was known largely from Montrose and Delta Counties, only on Mancos Shale, with two isolated occurrences in Mesa County. After that, the distribution was extended into adjacent Gunnison and Ouray Counties in 2003-2005. The many large populations in northern Mesa County and southern Garfield County were discovered 2004-2011. Since Cirsium perplexans was designated as a sensitive species by Colorado Bureau of Land Management in 1982, it surely would have been noticed in northern Mesa County and southern Garfield County before 2004. It appears that the distribution of this species is expanding. The Moffat County record is based on an herbarium specimen collected by Weber in 1951, species determined by David Keil, author of the Flora of North America treatment of the genus Cirsium. Abundance and population trend. Populations have been counted at 29 sites in Colorado. Numbers range from 37 to more than 6,000; average is over 1,400. Twelve to fifteen GMUG sites.

EO No. EO No. Plants Plants 1157 ±200 14760* 3,500 1554 ±300 14761* 4,000 2822 200 15048 >750 3326 81 15049 >500 3640 200 15050 200 4609 >100 15051 >1,200 6293 >1,000 15052 710 7192 55 15053 >2,900 7922* 2,500 15056 1,100 8261 >250 15058 >3,400

9844 140 15061 >1,000 13160 >2,800 15062 37 13170* >6,600 15275 500 13171 >3,200 15276 >800 13173 >2,400 Total >40,500 *. GMUG site

Habitat. Open adobe hills, roadsides, dams, ditches, openings in piñon-juniper woodland, soils from Mancos Shale or shales of other formations, 5,300–8,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Openings in Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Non- rhizomatous “biennial” herbaceous plant from taproots. Some populations seem to have two or three generations of vegetative rosette plants, so this species might be triennial or monocarpic (Spackman Panjabi and Anderson 2004). Plants of the species are pollinated by bees and flies; quantity of seed arising from self-fertilization is unknown. Reproduction is apparently very successful, since many populations have been observed to have large first-year rosette components. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The plants of Cirsium perplexans are probably palatable, as many thistles are; but they are seldom grazed because of the spines on stem and leaves, and cottony pappus on the flower heads. The plants are apparently resistant to trampling and other kinds of disturbance, as a number of populations are doing very well in heavily-used elk and deer winter ranges. A study of another native thistle in this area, Cirsium tracyi, showed significant reduction in seed production because of predation by an exotic insect released to control Canada thistle (Louda and O’Brien 2002). These authors made the suggestion that Cirsium perplexans might be similarly affected by biocontrol insects. However, investigations since then show that Cirsium perplexans is reproducing very well, apparently producing abundant seed that germinates into seedlings in abundance in many populations; and the distribution appears to be expanding. Many of the sites on the GMUG are open to off-road vehicles and are in winter ranges of mule deer and elk. Several of the populations are in areas grazed by livestock. Apparently these

disturbances do not affect Cirsium perplexans populations – in fact, there is some indications that such disturbance may favor the plants, since they are often seen on roadsides, dam banks, and other recently disturbed areas. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Disturbed shale hills, slopes, and openings in piñon-juniper and sagebrush. This species is Presumed Stable (with high confidence) in the face of climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to preference for highly disturbed areas and long distance dispersal capability. Often found at low quality sites along powerlines and dirt roads (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 6, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Keil, David J. 2006. Cirsium Miller. In Flora of North America Volume 19. Louda, Svata; and Charles W. O’Brien. 2002. Unexpected ecological effects of distributing the exotic weevil, Larinus planus (F.), for the biological control of Canada thistle. Conservation Biology 16(3): 717-727. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Spackman Panjabi, Susan; and David G. Anderson. 2004. Cirsium perplexans (Rydb.) Petrak (Rocky Mountain thistle): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 41 pp. Published online. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Cladina arbuscula (reindeer lichen) Cladina arbuscula (Wallring ) Hale & W. L. Culbertson (CLAR60) Cladonia arbuscula (Wallring) Rabenhorst Common name(s): reindeer lichen. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Not ranked in Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012).

Distribution. “Common in arctic and boreal area of the world”2. Distribution not given by NatureServe, because “distribution data for U. S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete.” Known from all provinces of Canada; states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming ; Central and South America; Europe; Asia; Australia.3 . No records at CNHP for Colorado. Herbarium specimens (COLO) from Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Park, San Juan, and Summit Counties. Three locations on the GMUG, all in fens in Gunnison County and Hinsdale County.

Abundance and population trend. No counts or trend estimates for Colorado populations. Habitat. Mats, sometimes dense, on the surface. Occurrences in Colorado are in fens, on cool forest floors and wet alpine tundra. 6,700–11,800 ft elevation. On the GMUG, fens, sometimes iron fens, with Sphagnum, 10,900-11,300 ft elevation. Forest Plant Ecosystems. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Largely unknown in Colorado. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites (an iron fen) is bisected by a county road, which apparently caused some damage to the iron fen there when the road was built (more than 50 years ago); there probably continues to be effects from road dust and road maintenance. Another GMUG site (a fen) is within the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness, and the trail nearby is not much used. The third site is just below a heavily-used gravel county road. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed conditions in wetlands, especially fens. This species is known from only 3 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

2 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladonia_arbuscula. 3 Consortium of North American Lichen Herbaria. http://lichenportal.org/portal/collections/index.php

The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 21, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Comarum palustre (purple marshlocks) 1. Species: Comarum palustre purple marshlocks

CNHP Not Ranked NatureServe has this species as an S3, but CNHP is silent on its status Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Comarum palustre is accepted as a valid species by Flora of North America, Weber and Wittmann, NatureServe, and the USDA Plants National Database. Ackerfield has it as Potentilla palustrus.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: Collected 14 times on the GMUG NFs, most recently in 2012. Most collections are on the Grand Mesa and Anthracite Range in the Elk Mountains. None of these collections have trend, population, or threat information. A few collections on the GMUG note that it is locally abundant. There are 30 total collections in Colorado so the GMUG has a significant role to play in the conservation of this species in Colorado. The species is circumboreal and grows throughout the world. The populations on the GMUG appear to be near the southern extent of the species in the Rockies.

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 14 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Component of subalpine fen and ponds on the GMUG generally above 10,000 ft sometimes found on floating mats and pond and lake shore lines. The hydrologic conditions that maintain fens are fairly critical to this species, since it is found the majority of the time in fens on the GMUG.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation. There are no known threats to this species on the GMUG.

Corydalis caseana (Brandegee’s fumewort) 1. Species: Corydalis caseana ssp. brandegeei Brandegee’s fumewort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Corydalis caseana ssp. brandegeei Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5T3T4 The sub-taxa (ssp brandegeei) is considered to be between vulnerable and apparently secure in Colorado T3 taxa are should consider for SCC CNHP S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently secure in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, NatureServe, CNHP, the Flora of North America, Ackerfield and Weber and Wittmann all consider Corydalis caseana ssp. brandegeei a valid taxa.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit: This species is not tracked by CNHP so there are no estimates of abundances or trend on the GMUG. There are at least 20 herbarium records of Brandegee’s fumewort on the GMUG. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 ≥20 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions: On the GMUG this species is known from moist areas of forests and open meadows often along streams and creeks from 8200-12,000 ft in elevation.

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Montane-Alpine, Wet Meadow and Marsh, Montane-Subalpine Grassland.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability, including Threats and Risk Factors: There are no known threats to this species on the GMUG. NatureServe describes wetland loss as a general threat to Brandegee’s fumewort as a whole, but does not specify any particular instances. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat.

Crataegus saligna (willow hawthorn) Crataegus saligna Greene 1896 (CRSA2) Crataegus douglasii Lindley var. duchesnensis S. L. Welsh 1982, Crataegus wheeleri A. Nelson 1902 Common name(s): willow hawthorn. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3G4/S3, Watchlisted Only. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3G4/S3 Taxonomy. Taxonomy of the genus Crataegus has been difficult, subject to many different interpretations. The Flora of North America treatment is the latest (Phipps 2015), which puts Crataegus saligna in Crataegus Section Douglasia. Crataegus saligna is closely related to Crataegus rivularis, and in decades past saligna was considered a synonym of rivularis. They both occur on streamsides in our area, often among cottonwoods. Phipps (2015) offers this key: 1. Leaf blades: veins 6–9(–12) per side, margins crenate; flowers 10–13 mm diam., stamens 20, anthers cream...... Crataegus saligna 1. Leaf blades: veins 4 or 5 per side, margins serrate; flowers 14–18 mm diam., stamens 10, anthers usually pink to pink- purple or purple, sometimes ivory ...... (2) 2. Leaf blades rhombic-elliptic, l/w = 1.6, lobes 3 or 4 per side; pomes deep red to vinous purple mature ...... Crataegus erythropoda 2. Leaf blades elliptic to narrowly elliptic, at least 2 times as long as wide, lobes 0 or with small apiculi at ends of some vein tips; pomes black or blackish purple mature ...... Crataegus rivularis Phipps (1999, 2015) includes Utah plants in Crataegus saligna (C. douglasii var. duchesnensis), as does PLANTS4 and Ackerfield (2015). NatureServe follow Beatty and others (2004), and consider C. saligna endemic to Colorado (Weber and Wittmann 2012). I follow FNA and Phipps (1999, 2015) in this report. Crataegus saligna was not considered a species separate from C. rivularis until about 2000, so inventories conducted before that time will have to be revisited; this may yield additional locations for C. saligna. Most sites for C. saligna are within the range of

4 plants.usda.gov, Accessed July 6, 2016.

C. rivularis; it is possible that C. saligna may prove to be the more abundant of the two in western Colorado (but not elsewhere; C. rivularis has a much larger range). The type specimens of Crataegus saligna and C. wheeleri were collected close to each other in Colorado, Cimarron and Black Canyon respectively. Distribution. Colorado and Utah. In Colorado in Eagle, Rio Blanco, Montrose, Gunnison, Garfield, Pitkin, Saguache, and Chaffee Counties (COLO, RM, Beatty and others 2004, Phipps 1999). Two sites on the GMUG, in a Picea pungens-Populus angustifolia riparian along a river, 8,000-8,600 ft elevation. There are two possible sites, where Crataegus was found as part of the Gunnison Basin classification (Johnston and others 2001).

Abundance and population trend. There is very little abundance data, and there is “Not enough abundance data or demographic information are available to conclude whether populations of C. saligna are increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable” (NatureServe, quoting Beatty and others 2004). It is very possible that more sites will be “discovered” when inventory sites are revisited, or when this species is searched for. "Believed to be more widespread that previously though…Population size is unknown, but it is reported to be the dominant shrub in several river drainages in western Colorado" (NatureServe). Habitat. River benches and banks and floodplains, often within communities dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood, the hydrid lanceleaf cottonwood, or river birch, 5,600–7,600 ft elevation. Most sites would be classed as riparian using commonly accepted definitions. On the GMUG, along streams and watercourses, cottonwood riparian, spruce-cottonwood riparian, 7,500-8,600 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Cottonwood Riparian. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. A medium to tall shrub with long thorns. Moderately palatable to deer and elk, probably would be more often browsed if not for the thorns. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Crataegus saligna occurs along streams at lower elevations that are heavily used by wild animals (deer and elk), livestock, and humans for transportation (a lot of roads through these stands) and recreation (off-road vehicle use, campgrounds). Several known sites are within mule deer and elk winter ranges. In our area, it is difficult to find a narrowleaf cottonwood-hawthorn stand in good condition, and very easy to find depleted stands. Most of these stands occur at lower elevations, below the National Forest.

Two of the GMUG sites are along major rivers, protected from livestock by fences (but not from humans or wild herbivores). The other stand is in an area grazed by livestock. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Good quality, relatively undisturbed narrowleaf cottonwood stands. The lowland riparian and wetland habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains due to potential changes in water cycles associated with changes in precipitation, changes in timing of snow melt, and more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Phipps, James B. Crataegus Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 9. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Crepis nana (dwarf alpine hawksbeard) Crepis nana Askellia nana (Richardson) W. A. Weber 1984 (ASNA5) "Crepis nana ssp. clivicola Leggett" – "Not accepted, invalidly published" (Bogler 2006, www.itis.gov) Common name(s): dwarf alpine hawksbeard, dwarf hawksbeard. Rank (CNHP): Not tracked Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists, as Crepis nana (Bogler 2006, Ackerfield 2015) or Askellia nana (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Russian botanists), named for Áskell Löve, famous botanist who worked in Colorado for a time. Ssp. clivicola, an invalid name, is shown by

NatureServe as "endemic to Colorado", but there are no records in any herbarium for that name; it is included in the species by Bogler (2006), CNHP, Weber and Wittmann (2012), and Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado; Labrador and Newfoundland. In Colorado in Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Custer, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Park, Pitkin, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit Counties. 40-50 sites in Colorado, from herbarium specimens. 10-15 sites on the GMUG. EO (2002) No. Indiv. 033 200 015 50 019 40 032 40 026 20 066* 120 010* 25 025 150 029 2 014 25 026 20 034 150 Total 842 * GMUG site.

Abundance and population trend. In 2002, CNHP had over 55 records, and several of these sites had been counted; populations ranged from five to several hundred, probably intensive for the small patches of habitat. Population records and counts since 2002 are not available. Several populations have been observed to be stable over several decades. Habitat. Among boulders, rocky slopes, ridges, and summits, scree slopes, 11,600–14,000 ft elevation, on a variety of substrates. The sites on steep, loose scree are difficult to access, and difficult to count population numbers. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants, reproduction by wind-blown seed (Heidel and Laursen 2001). Effects on species and habitat by current management. These habitats are generally invulnerable to management activities. Almost all GMUG sites are away from roads and trails; several are in wilderness. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable alpine scree and rocky sites.

The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species,

a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 29, 2016, revised June 5, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Bogler, David J. 2006. Crepis Linnaeus. In Flora of North America Volume 19. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Heidel, Bonnie; and Scott Laursen. 2001. Species Evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5281164.pdf Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A. 1984. New names and combinations, principally in the Rocky Mountain flora – IV. Phytologia 55(1):1-3. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Cryptantha weberi (Webers catseye) Oreocarya weberi (I. M. Johnston) W. A. Weber 1960 (ORWE2) Cryptantha weberi I. M. Johnston 1952 Common name(s): Weber's cryptantha, Weber's catseye. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all Colorado botanists, formerly as Cryptantha weberi (Harrington 1954, Higgins 1971), more recently as Oreocarpa weberi (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Conejos, Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties. 39 records at CNHP in 2016, conflated to 16 "occurrences" in 2017. There are about 50 known sites (Durkin 2002); two or three sites on the GMUG. No. EO Plants 4233 >300

100

6583 >18,000 12851 15,500 12852 >1,000 Total >40,000

Abundance and population trend. Four of the populations have been counted, ranging from over 300 to 18,000 (CNHP, Eickhoff and Diehl 1977). These are large populations. Habitat. Openings in sagebrush, soils derived from light-colored volcanic tuff with moderately alkaline soils (pH 7.5-8.2), 8,200–10,500 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Sagebrush Shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants, pollination by bees and flies, dispersal by ornamentation of the fruit, which sticks to animal fur or other agent. The plants are unpalatable to large herbivores, and seem at least somewhat resistant to trampling by hooves. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites is in a management area that emphasizes big game winter range; another emphasizes management indicator species. The Engelmann spruce forests in this area are being decimated by the spruce beetle, and there are active timber sales nearby. Road-building and maintenance for these timber sales may have an impact on the populations or habitat for Oreocarya weberi. Since this species no longer has the designation “sensitive species” in this Forest Service Region, effects of the timber sales were was not analyzed as part of the environmental analysis process. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. To contribute to viability of the larger meta-population, we should provide undisturbed conditions on the volcanic tuff in which this species grows. Populations of this species on the GMUG are isolated; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is ranked Presumed Stable (with low confidence) in the Gunnison Basin in the face of climate change due to lack of specific habitat requirements (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

101

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Durkin, Paula. 2002. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form. Cryptantha weberi/Weber’s cryptantha. Eickhoff, Linda; and Tim Diehl. 1977. Report on distribution and population status of Cryptantha weberi I. M. Johnston. Report, 56 pp. Harrington, H.D., 1954. Manual of the plants of Colorado. Sage Books. Higgins, Larry C. 1971. A revision of Cryptantha Subgenus Oreocarya. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series 13(4), 63 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Cryptogramma stelleri (slender rock brake) Cryptogramma stelleri (S. G. Gmelin) Prantl (CRST2) Common name(s): fragile rockbrake, slender rock-brake. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah and Wyoming, S2S3 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Alverson 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado; eastern Canada, Midwestern States, New England; northeastern Europe, Asia. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Conejos, Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, La Plata, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit Counties. Seventeen records from Colorado at CNHP. Seven sites on GMUG; several of the records from the GMUG are published reports more than 50 years old. Abundance and population trend. Six populations in Colorado have been counted; numbers range from five to several hundred. Trend data is unavailable. EO No. Plants 294 >200 3834 ±5

102

5022 ±12 6800 300 8923 >30 10035 >100 Total >650

Habitat. In Colorado, wet cliffs, waterfalls, shaded stream sides, mossy shaded rocks, usually in deep spruce-fir forest, 8,400–10,500 ft elevation. On a variety of geological substrates, including limestone. On the GMUG, moist crevices and cracks in cliffs of various geology, 9,600-10,500 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Moist to wet cliffs, mapped within Spruce-Fir Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest, and Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial fern, reproducing from spores; spores small, easily dispersed by wind. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites is within a Research Natural Area. Three of the sites are managed to emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation, but it is unlikely that motorized vehicles would have an effect. Two of the sites are on private land within the Forest boundary. None of these sites are subject to rock climbing. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Ecological conditions that would be necessary include moist, shaded cliffs and waterfalls within the subalpine zone. Populations of this species on the GMUG are small and isolated; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (very high confidence) in the San Juan Mountains and on BLM lands in Colorado based on this species’ restriction to cool, shaded cliff faces, the presence of cliffs and canyons that serve as natural barriers in suitable habitat, restriction to calcareous cliff faces and overhangs with dripping water and hotter and drier conditions that may result in a loss of suitable habitat for C. stelleri (Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 5, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

103

Alverson, Edward R. 1993. Cryptogramma R. Brown. Pp. 137-139 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Cystopteris montana (mountain bladder fern) Cystopteris montana (Lamarck ) Bernhardi ex Desvaux (CYMO3) Common name(s): mountain bladder fern. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked SH in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Haufler and others 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, across Canada; Montana; Colorado. In Colorado, in Chaffee, Conejos, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Ouray, Pitkin, Pueblo, San Juan, and Summit Counties. Twelve records at CNHP. Five sites on the GMUG. EO No. Plants 10164 >100 10575 >1,200 13433 >1,000 14746 >200 Total >2,500

Abundance and population trend. Four populations in Colorado have been counted, ranging from more than 100 to over one thousand. Trend data is unavailable.

104

Habitat. In Colorado, mossy shaded rocks and cliffs, mossy shaded forest floors, moist rock benches, waterfalls, mostly in subalpine zone with spruce-fir forest, 9,000–11,300 ft elevation. On the GMUG, cracks and crevices in rock outcrops, in moist spruce forest and spruce riparian, 10,000- 11,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Moist to wet cliffs, mapped in Spruce-Fir Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest, and Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodland. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the GMUG sites is on private (patented) land within the Forest boundary. Three sites are within the Fossil Ridge Management Area, managed as wilderness, with no motorized vehicles. One site is managed for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation. These are forest stands that may be affected by the current spruce beetle epidemic on the GMUG. As a result of spruce beetle, we can expect that the habitat in stands with Cystopteris montana would decline, at least with respect to the amount of shade and moisture at the surface. It is unknown whether these conditions would affect populations of this species, but such a large-scale change in habitat conditions contributes to substantial concern for long-term persistence of this species. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Moist, shaded old-growth spruce-fir forest with much down timber. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 5, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Draba crassa (thickleaf draba) Draba crassa Rydberg (DRCR)

105

Common name(s): thickleaf draba, thick-leaf whitlow-grass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3G4/S3, Watchlisted Only. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3G4/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists as a species (Rollins 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. In Colorado from Chaffee, Gunnison, Clear Creek, Conejos, Eagle, El Paso, Grand, Hinsdale, Jackson, La Plata, Lake, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, San Juan, Summit, Montezuma, Pueblo, and Huerfano Counties. Abundance and population trend. Total of 197 herbarium specimens from Colorado (COLO, CS, RM, FLC, etc.). About thirty-five sites on the GMUG.

Habitat. In Colorado, rocks, talus, boulder fields, gravelly hillsides, cliffs, mostly alpine to high alpine, elevation range 10,600–14,000 ft, mostly 11,800–13,400 ft; the rocks in which the species grows are of a wide variety of lithology – granite, limestone, volcanic tuffs, and others (Handley and others 2002). The minimum elevation was right at the north state line, where timberline is significantly lower because of higher latitude (see Johnston and others 2001). On the GMUG, rocks and talus, fellfields, 11,900-13,200 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Thick- rooted alpine perennial alpine rosette-forming plants. Effects on species and habitat by current management. None recorded, and none expected, given the resiliency of the habitat. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stability of rocks in the alpine. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

106

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handley, Joy; Bonnie Heidel; and Scott Laursen. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5269693.pdf Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Johnston, Barry C., Laurie Huckaby, Terry J. Hughes, and Joseph Pecor. 2001. Ecological types of the Upper Gunnison Basin: Vegetation-soil-landform-geology-climate-water land classes for natural resource management. Technical Report R2-RR-2001-01, 858 pp. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. May, 2001. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Rollins, Reed C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 976 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba globosa (rockcress draba) Draba globosa Payson (DRGL6) Common name(s): beavertip draba, rockcress draba. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Idaho and Utah, S2S3 in Wyoming and Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by all Colorado botanists (Rollins 1993, Ladyman 2004, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. In Colorado, in Clear Creek, Gunnison, Lake, Pitkin, and Summit Counties. Seven records from Colorado at CNHP. Ladyman (2004) lists five sites in Colorado. One site on the GMUG, shared with Astragalus molybdenus and near to a site for Arnica angustifolia ssp. tomentosa. Abundance and population trend. Six populations in Colorado have been counted: population numbers vary from 10-50. Several botanists have reported difficulty in accurate counts, because

107

the plants are very small and often grow with other Draba species. The only identifiable plants are those in fruit, so vegetative plants may have been missed. Also, the rocky sites add difficulties in counting. “There are insufficient data… to determine long-trends for the species” (Ladyman 2004). No.

EO Plants

6793* 20

7190 20

9089* 50

13400 >20

13402 10

13414 50

* GMUG site.

Habitat. In Colorado, sparsely vegetated sites in the alpine such as rock crevices, gentle gravelly slopes, 12,000–12,700 ft elevation; variety of lithology. On the GMUG, on gentle sparsely- vegetated gravelly slopes, calcareous soils, in late-snow areas in the alpine zone, 12,400–12,700 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small herbaceous perennial plants. The plants are likely capable of reproducing by apomixis (seed formation without pollination) or from pollinated seed. Pollinators are likely flies (Ladyman 2004). Effects on species and habitat by current management. No reports of effects on the GMUG. The known site is within the Fossil Ridge Special Management Area, managed like wilderness, well away from roads and trails, and not accessible by off-road vehicles. Plants are too small to be grazed by large herbivores Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable, undisturbed alpine ecosystems (Ladyman 2004). This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on restriction to cold environments, inability for long distance seed dispersal, and dependence on ice and snow (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

108

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2004. Draba globosa Payson (beavertip draba): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region,46 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Rollins, Reed C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 976 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba graminea (San Juan draba) Draba graminea Greene (DRGR2) Common name(s): Rocky Mountain draba, San Juan whitlow-grass, San Juan draba. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Al-Shehbaz and others 2010, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Ouray, Rio Grande, and San Miguel Counties. 85 herbarium specimens, representing about 60- 70 sites; 29 records at CNHP. Within its range and habitat, a commonly encountered species; there may be several hundred populations. About fifteen sites on the GMUG. EO No. Plants 1905 200 2208* >400 3684 10 4590 >1,000 7274* ±3,000 7593* >400 7822* 450 8942* ±400 9176 50 10222 25 11362 5,000

11733 >200

109

12322 200 13099 >200 13100 >500 13123 >1,000 15491 2,000 Total >15,000

Abundance and population trend. Seventeen populations have been counted, ranging from ten to five thousand, average about 900. Trend data unavailable. Habitat. In Colorado and on the GMUG, rocky alpine ridges, late snowmelt patches, rock ledges, outcrops, and scree slopes, 11,800–13,500 ft elevation. Variety of geological substrates. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants with taproots, reproducing by seed but probably at least partially apomictic. Population structure and demographics unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Five GMUG sites are within wilderness areas. Six GMUG sites are partially on NFS land, partly on private (patented) land; the NFS portions are managed for semi-primitive motorized recreation. Three GMUG sites are managed to emphasize timber production (though the sites for the species are far above timberline). The sites that are within motorized recreation areas are generally accessible to off-road off-trail vehicles, and there could be effects from that. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed alpine late- snowmelt areas. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the San Juan Mountains based on the species restriction to cold environments, inability for long distance seed dispersal, dependence on ice and snow, and the presence of natural barriers within its habitat (Handwerk et al. 2014). Hotter and drier conditions may result in a loss of suitable habitat for. D. graminea Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 5, 2016, revised June 10, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; Michael D. Windham; and Reidar Elven. 2010. Draba Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

110

Draba incerta (Yellowstone draba) Draba incerta Payson (DRIN2) Common name(s): Yellowstone draba, Yellowstone whitlow-grass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah, S2 in Idaho, S3 in Wyoming, S4S5 in Montana. Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Al-Shehbaz and others 2010, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). It is closely related to Draba oligosperma, the two often being confused. “Draba incerta is readily separated from D. oligosperma by having well-formed (versus abortive) anthers and pollen, stalked (versus sessile) leaf trichomes, and ciliate (versus non-ciliate) basal leaves with obscure (versus prominent) midveins” (Al-Shehbaz and others 2010); these are small and variable characters. The other “species” in the complex, Draba pectinipila, is distinguished by having pectinate trichomes on the fruit. These are fairly difficult characters to read in the field, and certain identification probably requires an expert’s identification on a herbarium specimen. Distribution. Draba incerta var. incerta in Alaska and Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado; disjunct in Quebec. Much more common in Wyoming and Montana than in Colorado or Utah. In Colorado, in Conejos, Park, Gunnison, and Summit Counties; reported (doubtfully) from Ouray and County. Six confirmed sites represented by herbarium specimens. Four records from Colorado at CNHP. Two or three sites on the GMUG.

Abundance and population trend. Two GMUG sites (both with confirmed identification) are close together, on two mountain peaks about 1.8 miles from each other, both on talus slopes of Leadville Limestone, 12,000–12,300 ft elevation. Neither site has been counted or estimated. A possible third site is on cliffs at 8,800 ft in Ouray County – but the identification has not been confirmed, and given the different habitat, must be considered doubtful. Habitat. Most Colorado occurrences are in the alpine zone, on talus or rocky slopes, usually with a limestone substrate. Wyoming botanists report a much more diverse range of habitats; see Heidel and Laursen 2002; perhaps this represents a different concept of the species in the two

111

states? On the GMUG, talus slopes and rocky tundra, soils derived from limestone, 12,000- 12,300 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Largely unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One of the confirmed GMUG sites is well away from roads and trails, and inaccessible by off-road vehicles; the other has a 4WD road nearby. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Contribution to species viability would include stability and undisturbed conditions on alpine talus slopes, especially in limestone areas. This species is known from only 3 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 22, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; Michael D. Windham; and Reidar Elven. 2010. Draba Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Heidel, Bonnie. 2001. Species Evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5269700.pdf Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

112

Draba malpighiacea (whitlow grass) 1. Species: Draba malpighiacea whitlow-grass

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G1/S1? Globally critically imperiled - G1 species are Must Consider species. NatureServe gives this rank to whitlow-grass due to its extremely restricted range and few occurrences globally. CNHP S1 Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Described as a new species in 2007, Draba malpighiacea is accepted by NatureServe, CNHP, the Flora of North America, Ackerfield, and Weber and Wittmann. Plants National Database is silent on this species.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit: Previously known from only Hindsale, La Plata, and Montezuma counties in southwestern Colorado, this species was collected by Laurie Brummer (Univ. of Wyoming) on the west side of Leon Peak on Grand Mesa NF on a rocky subalpine slope in 2012. The occurrences (2) on the Grand Mesa are a significant range extension for this extremely rare species and are 100 miles Northwest of the nearest known occurrence. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions: This species is known from the GMUG NFs on rocky slopes between 11,000 and 12,000 feet.

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability, including Threats and Risk Factors: Populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species

113

is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Al-Shehbaz, I.A., and M. D. Windham. 2007. New or noteworthy North American Draba (Brassicaceae). Harvard Papers in Botany 12(2): 409-419. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Draba malpighiacea. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. _Draba malpighiacea treatment accessed September 19, 2017 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250094702 Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

114

Draba oligosperma (woods draba) Draba oligosperma Hooker (DROL) Draba pectinipila Rollins, Draba oligosperma Hooker var. pectinipila (Rollins) C. L. Hitchcock Draba juniperina Dorn, Draba oligosperma Hooker var. juniperina (Dorn) S. Welsh Common name(s): fewseed draba, few-seed whitlow-grass, woods draba. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S5 in Wyoming and Montana, not ranked in Utah. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Draba oligosperma is the major, widespread species in a group that includes Draba incerta Payson and Draba pectinipila Rollins. It has been demonstrated that D. pectinipila and D. juniperina are morphologically different (Lichvar 1983), but there is variation in all characters, within the variation in D. oligospermaIn Flora of North America (Al-Shehbaz and others 2010), Draba oligosperma and D. pectinipila are both recognized as species, with juniperina synonymized under D. pectinipila. “Draba oligosperma is a highly variable and widespread species that has been shown to be apomictic…. It has been divided into species and infraspecific taxa by previous authors; the variation is continuous in every character; there are no clear geographical and morphological patterns that support its division” (Al-Shehbaz and others

115

2010). I agree; Draba pectinipila and D. juniperina are both well within the variation of Draba oligosperma. Weber and Wittmann (2012) accept both Draba oligosperma and D. pectinipila, but key pectinipila with oligosperma, as “closely related” to it; D.pectinipila occurs in piñon-juniper in northwest Colorado (D. juniperina is a synonym). Ackerfield (2015) describes Draba oligosperma, with juniperina as a synonym; pectinipila is not mentioned. The Rocky Mountain Herbarium (RM) has entries for all three, but the folders for pectinipila and juniperina only include the type specimens; all others are included in oligosperma. NatureServe now has lumped pectinipila and juniperina into Draba oligosperma, without any subspecies. Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Nunavut, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Much more common in Wyoming and Montana. In Colorado, in Summit, Chaffee, Grand, Conejos, Gunnison, Eagle, Lake, Moffatt, Park, and Saguache Counties. About 30-50 locations in Colorado, 24 records from Colorado at CNHP. About 15 locations on the GMUG. No.

EO Plants

3572 50

3573* >50

4329* 150

7364 ±300

10607 >500

13721* 40

13722* 200

13730 20

15593 5

Total >1,315

* GMUG sites

Abundance and population trend. Of the 24 records at CNHP, only ten have been counted. Populations range from very small to over 500. Habitat. In Colorado, talus slopes, rocky slopes, rocky or gravelly ridges, old road beds, dry meadows, cracks in pavements; almost always on limestone or limy shale, 6,000–8300 ft (northwestern Colorado), 11,400–13,100 ft (central Colorado). On the GMUG, on rocky alpine slopes and talus, soils derived from limestone, 11,600-13,200 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs.

116

Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small herbaceous perennial plants with a basal rosette. Mostly scapose, without leaves on the flowering stem. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Six sites on the GMUG are managed for semi- primitive non-roaded recreation emphasis. Eight sites are managed for semi-primitive roaded recreation emphasis; mostly accessible to off-road vehicles. Two sites are managed as wilderness. These rocky sites are not likely to be affected by large herbivores, since there is little forage here and plants are protected by the rocks. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable rocky slopes and talus slopes in alpine areas with limestone or limy shale substrate. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; Michael D. Windham; and Reidar Elven. 2010. Draba Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Lichvar, R.W., 1983. Evaluation of Draba oligosperma, D. pectinipila, and D. juniperina complex (Cruciferae). The Great Basin Naturalist, pp.441-444.b. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba rectifructa (mountain draba) Draba rectifructa C. L. Hitchcock (DRRE)

117

Common name(s): mountain draba, mountain whitlow-grass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3G4/S3, Watchlisted Only. Ranked S2S3 in Utah, Not Ranked in Arizona and New Mexico. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3G4/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists (Rollins 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015).

Distribution. Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Dolores, Eagle, Garfield , Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jefferson, Lake, Mesa, Mineral, Montrose, Ouray, Park, Rio Blanco, Saguache, San Miguel, Summit, and Teller Counties. In 2002, there were 20 records at CNHP. On the GMUG, 20-25 locations, some from classification samples. Abundance and population trend. Four GMUG populations have been counted: >1000, >1000, >300, and >1000 plants in sagebrush stands. Habitat. Sagebrush stands, openings in lodgepole pine or aspen forests, open ponderosa pine stands, 7,900–9,000 ft on the GMUG. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Sagebrush shrublands, and sagebrush openings in Lodgepole Pine Forest, Aspen Forest, or Ponderosa Pine Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Largely unknown. Plants are short-lived herbaceous perennials. There is no indication that the plants are palatable to herbivores. From observations, this plant may be an "increaser," that is, it increases with livestock grazing. Effects on species and habitat by current management. No effects have been directly observed, although road and trail building, and campground management probably have effects. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Healthy sagebrush stands. This species is considered to have an Increase Likely (with low confidence) in the face of climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on tolerance for broad moisture and climate regime (Neely et al. 2011). In the San Juan Mountains this species is similarly likely to increase, however the spruce fir portion of this species habitat is moderately vulnerable (with low confidence) in both the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

118

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Rollins, Reed C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 976 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba spectabilis (showy draba) Draba spectabilis Greene (DRSP) Draba spectabillis Greene var. oxyloba (Greene) Gilg and Schulz

Common name(s): showy draba. Rank (CNHP 2017): Not tracked Rank (NatureServe 2017): G3G4/S3? for Colorado, S1 in Wyoming, S1S2 in Utah, not ranked in New Mexico and Arizona. Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Rollins 1993, Price 1980, Al-Shehbaz and others 2010, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). There remains quite a bit of confusion among the species in this group (D. spectabilis, D. streptobrachia) , even after Price’s work (1980) and others. Herbarium specimens are often identified to a species by one expert, then to a different species by another expert. NatureServe shows D. spectabilis with two varieties in Colorado, var. spectabilis (Not Ranked in Colorado) and var. oxyloba (S3). Neither Weber and Wittmann (2012) nor Ackerfield (2015) allow varieties under D. spectabilis. Distribution. Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. In Colorado, in Alamosa, Archuleta, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Delta, Dolores, Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Lake, La Plata, Larimer, Mesa, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties. 35-40 herbarium specimens from the GMUG.

119

Abundance and population trend. No repeat counts, so trend is unknown. Habitat. In Colorado, Creek banks, moist alpine slopes and meadows, meadows among subalpine forests or sagebrush, willow carrs, aspen forests, 8,500–13,000 ft elevation. Most sites have some degree of human-caused disturbance, such as grazing, trail use, or erosion from use. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh, Montane- Subalpine Riparian Shrubland, openings in Spruce-Fir Forest or Aspen Forest or Sagebrush. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Short-lived perennial herbaceous plants. Observations indicate that this plant may be an "increaser," this is, increases with livestock use. Effects on species and habitat by current management. No effects observed. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Rangelands in fair range condition. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

120

Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba streptobrachia (Colorado Divide whitlow-grass) Draba streptobrachia R. A. Price (DRST5) Draba spectabilis Greene var. dasycarpa (O. E. Schulz) C. L. Hitchcock, not D. dasycarpa Bernhardi Common name(s): alpine tundra draba, Colorado Divide whitlow-grass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. NatureServe doesn't include New Mexico in distribution. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as Draba streptobrachia by Weber and Wittman (2012) and Ackerfield (2015). Known as Draba spectabilis var. dasycarpa until Price’s work (1980) demonstrated that this deserved to be a species in its own right, clearly separate from the lower-elevation D. spectabilis. Distribution. Colorado and northern New Mexico. In Colorado, in Alamosa, Archuleta, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Lake, La Plata, Larimer, Mineral, Montezuma, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, Saguache, San Juan, and Summit Counties. 127 herbarium specimens, representing 90-100 sites in Colorado. 53 records at CNHP (2017). Fifteen sites on the GMUG. No. No. EO Plants EO Plants 220 >500 12300 >50 726 20 12311 20 1164 100 13112 15 1627 200 13113 >100 1628 20 13404 15 3141* 15 13738 20 5075 ±10 Total >2,800 5407 50 5629 60 7398 5

7928 25 8666 >500 9297* 5 9449 10 10151 12

121

10173 >1,000 *. GMUG sites

Abundance and population trend. Twenty-two populations in Colorado have been counted; numbers range from five to over one thousand, average 125. There is no trend data. Habitat. Steep gravelly slopes, rock outcrops, alpine boulder fields, loose scree slopes, 10,300– 13,500 ft elevation. “Apparently restricted to areas above treeline in Colorado” (Price 1980). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants from a taproot, reproduction by apomixis (reproduction without fertilization) primarily; pollen is largely sterile (Burkhart 2002). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Five GMUG sites are in management areas emphasizing semi-primitive motorized recreation. One GMUG site emphasizes semi-primitive non-motorized recreation. One GMUG site is managed to emphasize roaded natural recreation. Seven GMUG sites are in wilderness areas. One GMUG site is on private (patented) land within the forest boundary. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. “Habitat is largely inaccessible, and stable” (Burkhart 2002). Stable, undisturbed alpine rocks. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in both the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains based on restriction to cold environments, inability for long distance seed dispersal, and dependence on ice and snow (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 5, 2016, revised June 10, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Burkhart, Beth. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5269719.pdf Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Price, Robert A. 1980. Draba streptobrachia, a new species from Colorado. Brittonia 32(2):160-169. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

122

Draba ventosa (tundra draba) Draba ventosa A. Gray (DRVE) Common name(s): Wind River draba, Wind River whitlow-grass, tundra draba. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah, S1S2 in Montana, S3 in Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Rollins 1993, Al-Shehbaz 2010, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Rocky Mountains from Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Discontinuous distribution, in seven or eight disjunct patches across this whole area. In Colorado in Gunnison, Lake, Pitkin, and Chaffee Counties. There is a report also from Mesa County at low elevations, probably a misidentification. Six records at CNHP. There are three or four locations on the GMUG, from close together on the same mountain. The GMUG locations derive from four herbarium specimens, two collected by me in 1980; Ladyman (2004) says there are four sites on the GMUG, and nine in Colorado. Abundance and population trend. “Rare throughout its range” (Ladyman 2004). One Colorado population was estimated at “several hundred individuals” (CNHP). Otherwise, no counts or indication of trend.

Habitat. Alpine talus slopes, rocky meadows, and ridges, 12,200–14,000 ft elevation. The GMUG sites are on limestone or dolomite, but other sites in Colorado are on granitic substrates. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Cushion plants, mat-forming, long-lived herbaceous perennials. Age classes have not been noted in Colorado populations, probably a result of other, vegetatively similar Draba species present and the difficulty of inventorying these high-elevation rocky sites. Draba ventosa probably reproduces primarily by seed (Ladyman 2004). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Effects have been documented by Ladyman (2004), including trampling from human trails and hiking and over-collection for rock gardens.

123

Trampling by mountain goats is a possible threat in Utah, but the goat population is small on the GMUG. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed conditions in high alpine ecosystems. This species is known from only 4 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; Michael D. Windham; and Reidar Elven. 2010. Draba Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2004. Draba ventosa A. Gray (Wind River draba): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 41 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Rollins, Reed C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 976 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Draba fladnizensis (Austrian draba) 1. Species: Draba fladnizensis Austrian draba

124

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Austrian draba Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4G5/S2S3

CNHP G4/S3 Vulnerable in Colorado – Watchlisted only by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Draba fladnizensis is accepted by NatureServe, CNHP, the Flora of North America, Ackerfield, Weber and Wittmann, and Plants National Database.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: Known from at least 20 collections on the GMUG. There are around 130 records for this species in Colorado. None of the collections have trend, population, or threat information. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 >20 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species is known from the GMUG NFs on rocky alpine and shrub tundra slopes above 12,000 feet.

Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species is rated as Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to the impacts of climate change in the Gunnison Basin (Neely et al 2011). The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

125

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Al-Shehbaz, I.A., and M. D. Windham. 2007. New or noteworthy North American Draba (Brassicaceae). Harvard Papers in Botany 12(2): 409-419. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Draba malpighiacea. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. _Draba malpighiacea treatment accessed September 19, 2017 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250094702 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Draba lonchocarpa var. lonchocarpa (lancepod draba) 1. Species: Draba lonchocarpa var. lonchocarpa lancepod draba

CNHP NA NatureServe has this species as an S3 – However, CNHP is silent on this taxa Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Draba lonchocarpa var. lonchocarpa is accepted by NatureServe, CNHP, the Flora of North America, Ackerfield, Weber and Wittmann, and Plants National Database.

126

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: Known from 4 collections on the GMUG. There are around 25 records for this species in Colorado. None of the collections have trend, population, or threat information. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 4 years

Year Last Observed 1998

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species is known from the GMUG NFs on alpine tundra and talus above 11,500 feet.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes & Cliffs

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Draba malpighiacea. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. _Draba malpighiacea treatment accessed September 19, 2017 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250094702 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

127

Drosera rotundfolia (roundleaf sundew) Drosera rotundifolia L. (DRRO) Common name(s): roundleaf sundew. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S3S4 in Montana, Not Ranked in other western states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Mellichamp 2016, Weber and Wittman 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, through all of Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Montana, Colorado, Midwestern States, Southeastern States, New England; Eurasia. In Colorado in Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, and Routt Counties. Eight known sites in Colorado, eight records at CNHP. One GMUG site. EO No. Plants 1602 3,000 4865 >5,000 9610 10,000 10105* 500 10764 >5,000 11498 ±2,000 14565 2,000 Total >27,500 *. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. The Colorado sites counted have shown some fluctuation over the years; the Drosera plants seem to be very sensitive to very small changes in water quantity and chemistry. The GMUG population has been observed nearly every year since 1977, and seems to be stable within normal limits. Habitat. In Colorado, iron fens, 8,900–10,600 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Carnivorous perennial herbaceous plants. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The one GMUG site is within a Forest Service Botanical Area and a Colorado State Natural Area, but the area is close to a road and population center. There has been an unauthorized ditch dug at this site over the last few years by unknown persons, which must have had a detrimental effect on Drosera. In addition, this fen is very sensitive to human or animal traffic. The area is not grazed by livestock, but deer, elk, and humans visit the site frequently.

128

The fen is fed by groundwater from a small watershed, which is partially on National Forest and partially on private (patented) land. This watershed produces water with high content of heavy metals, which eventually get to the creek below, a municipal water supply. A portion of this watershed burned in a small wildfire several decades ago, which causes more runoff of acid water with heavy metal content. There is concern on one hand for water quality in the creek, and on the other hand for protection and rehabilitation of the iron fen.

Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. It would require stable water supply and undisturbed conditions (especially hydrology and water chemistry) for fens, especially iron fens. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to restriction to fens and lack of genetic diversity, likely susceptible to small changes in the alteration of hydrology (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 6, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Erigeron humilis (low fleabane) Erigeron humilis Graham (ERHU) Common name(s): arctic alpine fleabane, low fleabane. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. S1 in Utah, S2 in Wyoming and Idaho, S3S4 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1

129

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Cronquist 1947, Nesom 2006, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon across Canada to Labrador and Greenland, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario; south in the Rocky Mountains to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. There are nine sites in Colorado. There are confirmed locations in Clear Creek, Gunnison, Pitkin, Hinsdale, La Plata, San Juan, and Summit Counties. Four or five locations on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. One GMUG population was counted at 70-120 individuals. There is no trend data.

Habitat. Alpine ridges, boulder fields, talus slopes, 11,300–13,200 ft elevation. On the GMUG, alpine fellfields, rocky meadows, and ridges, 12,500–13,200 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Long-living perennial herbaceous plants with a basal rosette of leaves. Probably reproducing by seed, dispersal by wind. Species is difficult to inventory because of high-elevation, rocky habitat. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Two of the GMUG sites are away from roads and trails. Another GMUG site is accessible to small off-road vehicles with difficulty; the fourth is on a commonly climbed peak. But the habitat of large rocks is resilient to disturbance. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Alpine rocks in undisturbed condition. This species is known from only 4 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on restriction to cold environments and dependence on ice and snow (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

130

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cronquist, Arthur. 1947. Revision of the North American species of Erigeron, north of Mexico. Brittonia 6(2): 121-302. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Nesom, Guy L. 2006. Erigeron Linnaeus. In Flora of North America Volume 20. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Erigeron lanatus (woolly fleabane) Erigeron lanatus Hooker (ERLA) Common name(s): woolly fleabane. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3G4/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming, S3S4 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists (Cronquist 1947, Nesom 2006, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado. In Colorado known from Gunnison, Park, Pitkin, Chaffee, and Dolores Counties. Nine records at CNHP. Eleven locations in Colorado. Three locations on the GMUG; four others are just north of the Forest boundary on the White River National Forest. EO No. Plants

819 >250

2447 <20

4901 ±100

9808 “locally

abundant”

12770 ±50

131

Abundance and population trend. Four Colorado populations have been counted, ranging from less than 20 to more than 250; the GMUG populations have not been formally counted, though the site near the ski area was stated to be "just a few plants." Trend data lacking. Habitat. In Colorado, rocky alpine ridges, talus slopes, fellfields, 12,500–13,900 ft elevation. On the GMUG, large-rock talus or rocky alpine tundra, 11,900-13,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants with basal leaves. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One GMUG population is next to a popular 4WD spur road, and there are several illegal user-created motorcycle trails in the area, which may have an effect. The second site is within the Fossil Ridge Special Management Area, which is managed like wilderness. These rocky habitats are fairly resilient. The third site is near the permit boundary for a heavily-used ski area, part of an area considered for expansion of the permit; this gets some foot travel in the summer, and occasional skiers in the winter. Effects of these uses on the plants are unknown. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable alpine rocks and scree slopes, undisturbed alpine ridges. This species is known from only 3 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and the San Juan Mountains based on restriction to cold environments, inability for long distance seed dispersal, and dependence on ice and snow (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

132

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cronquist, Arthur. 1947. Revision of the North American species of Erigeron, north of Mexico. Brittonia 6(2): 121-302. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Nesom, Guy L. 2006. Erigeron Linnaeus. In Flora of North America Volume 20. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Eriogonum coloradense (Colorado wild buckwheat) Eriogonum coloradense Small (ERCO11) Common name(s): Colorado buckwheat, Colorado wild buckwheat. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by many botanists (Reveal 2005, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015), yet others have questioned this species (Bill Jennings, annotation on Penland 292 from South Park). Dave Anderson (2004) quotes a conversation with Jim Reveal, wherein he said that E. coloradense “may ultimately prove to be a high elevation form of E. lonchophyllum … Due to the lack of research to suggest otherwise, Dr. Reveal is retaining E. lonchophyllum and E. coloradense at the rank of species.” Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Chaffee, Gunnison, Park, Pitkin, and Saguache Counties. Anderson (2004) lists 22 sites for this species. 27 records at CNHP. Ten sites on the GMUG.

133

Abundance and population trend. Two populations have been counted, both of them in high- elevation alpine habitats: ±200 and >1,000. “No thorough, range-wide inventory has been conducted for Eriogonum coloradense. Occurrences to date have been documented through herbarium specimens, survey work by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and the USFS, and published sources” (Anderson 2004). Habitat. There is a wide range of habitats: (1) Steep, rocky alpine slopes, 11,500–13,000 ft., with species like Packera porteri and Askellia nana; (2) Subalpine barren shale slopes, 9,000–11,000 ft; (3) Ash-flow tuff in arid mountain parks, 8,500-10,000 ft, with species like Festuca arizonica, Artemisia frigida, and Muhlenbergia montana. (4) Meadow margins in mountain parks, 9,000– 10,000 ft. On the GMUG, (1) steep rocky upper-subalpine and alpine slopes, 11,500-12,700 ft (2) Subalpine barren shale slopes, 9,500-10,500 ft (3) open parkland on ash-flow tuff, 9,100-9,300 ft (4) Moist meadows and edges of riparian areas, 9,600 ft (4) Openings in spruce-fir forest, ca. 10,500 ft Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, moist meadows in Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, shale slopes in Sagebrush Shrubland, barren shale slopes in Spruce-Fir Forest openings. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Long-lived mat-forming perennial herbaceous plants, with a long taproot and spreading branches at the surface (Anderson 2004). “Characteristics of Eriogonum coloradense most closely approximate those of stress-tolerant species. Stress-tolerant attributes of E. coloradense include long life span, adaptations to xeric fellfield conditions, and low reproductive output. … The habitats in which it is often found suggest that it is tolerant of chronic surface disturbance caused by frost heave and mass wasting. Its appearance on the Gothic Earthflow in 1947 suggests that it is capable of responding favorably to disturbance. On some steep scree and talus slopes there are few if any associated plant species with E. coloradense, suggesting that it possesses adaptations to this environment that other species do not have” (Anderson 2004). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Six GMUG sites occur in the alpine in a management area where semi-primitive motorized recreation is featured, but the populations are on rocky ridges and peaks where vehicles cannot go, and away from hiking trails. Two GMUG sites in the alpine are within a research natural area, where vehicles and trails are not allowed. One GMUG site is in a dry park under a management prescription for big-game winter range; this is in an area where there is high-mortality in the spruce due to the current spruce

134

beetle epidemic, so there are a number of active and planned timber sales. In this latter area, E. coloradense occurs near to Oreocarya weberi and Machaeranthera coloradoensis. Eriogonum coloradense does not appear to be palatable to large herbivores (very few members of this genus are). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. The alpine populations of Eriogonum coloradense would need stable alpine rocks and scree slopes. The lower-elevation populations would need stable, undisturbed soil surfaces. This species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to restriction to cold environments and dependence on snow cover (Neely et al. 2011). Species did not score as Extremely Vulnerable in the Gunnison Basin (as it does on BLM lands in Colorado) due to its broader elevation range, and broad substrate requirements (Neely et al. 2011). The BLM also notes that the species is Extremely Vulnerable (with very high confidence) due to barriers to movement, likelihood of short seed dispersal distances, and potential loss of soil moisture due to projected climate warming (CNHP 2015).

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Anderson, David G. 2004. Gilia sedifolia Brandeg. (stonecrop gilia): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 43 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Reveal, James L. 2005 Eriogonum Michaux. In Flora of North America Volume 5. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Eriophorum altaicum (Altai cottongrass) Eriophorum altaicum Meinshausen 1900 var. neogaeum Raymond 1957 (ERALN) Eriophorum scheuchzeri Hoppe 1800 Common name(s): whitebristle cottongrass, Altai cotton-grass, Altai cottongrass. Rank (CNHP 2016): G4?T3T4/S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4?T3T4/S3 Taxonomy. The taxonomy of cotton-grasses is complex, and varies considerably among taxonomic botanists, especially dependent on the continent where they are located. The following table

135

shows the distribution of species of Eriophorum in the Rocky Mountain Region, according to the treatment in Flora of North America (Ball and Wujek 2002). Species Synonyms Code CO WY SD NE Common Names Eriophorum angustifolium Eriophorum polystachion, nom. rej. ERAN6 X X X X tall cottongrass Eriophorum callitrix ERCA13 X arctic cottongrass Eriophorum chamissonis Eriophorum russeolum vars. ERCH7 X X X Chamisso's cottongrass Eriophorum gracile ERGR8 X X slender cottongrass Eriophorum altaicum, Eriophorum Eriophorum scheuchzeri capitatum ERSC2 X X white cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum ERVI9 X X thinleaf cottonsedge The following table distinguishes the species of Eriophorum in the Rocky Mountain Region. Spikelets per culm Solitary Several Leaf blade on culm Lacking Blade << sheath Blade ≥ sheath Leaf blade, lower part Channeled Flat, 1- 3 mm wide Channeled, 1-2 mm wide Habit Rhizomatous - Stoloniferous Tufted Rhizomatous – Stoloniferous Anther length ≤ 1.5 mm 1 – 2.5 mm ≤ 1 mm > 2 mm < 1.5 mm 1 – 2.5 mm Bracts Several, ≤ inflorescence 2 – 5, ≥ inflorescence 1, ≤ inflorescence Black-margin White-margin Black White-margin, acute Black-margin Scale tip Acuminate White-margin acute acuminate acute acuminate Midrib < scale Midrib ≥ scale Intermountain1,2 E. scheuchzeri † † E. angustifolium* † † Colorado3,4 E. altaicum † † E. angustifolium † E. gracile Colorado9 E. scheuchzeri E. chamissonis † E. angustifolium E. viridicarinatum E. gracile Wyoming5 E. scheuchzeri E. chamissonis † E. callitrix E. angustifolium E. viridicarinatum E. gracile Alaska6 E. scheuchzeri E. russeolum E. brachyantherum‡ E. callitrix E. angustifolium E. viridicarinatum E. gracile Pacific Northwest7 E. scheuchzeri E. chamissonis E. brachyantherum † E. angustifolium* E. viridicarinatum E. gracile CO, WY, SD, KS - FNA8 E. scheuchzeri E. chamissonis † † E. angustifolium E. viridicarinatum E. gracile *. In the flora as E. polystachion. “Hylander (1945) shows that this name is a nomen ambiguum, and should be rejected” (Weber & Wittmann 2000). †. Not shown in the flora area by this publication. ‡. There is another species in Alaska not in our area, in this group, but with pale gray scales: E. vaginatum. 1. Cronquist 1977. 2. Welsh and others 1993. 3. Weber and Wittmann. 2012a. 4. Weber and Wittmann. 2012b. 5. Dorn 2001. 6. Hultén 1968. 7. Hitchcock and others 1969. 8. Ball and Wujek 2002. 9. Ackerman 2015. Ladyman (2004, 2006) maintains that Eriophorum altaicum and E. scheuchzeri are separate species. More than a century ago, E. scheuchzeri was observed to be similar to E. altaicum, but the two taxa were believed to have some constant morphological differences (Meinshausen 1900, Shishkin 1935). According to Meinshausen (1900), both E. scheuchzeri and E. altaicum have short anthers (0.5 to 1.0 mm), white bristles, long stolons, and fewer than seven basal glumes, but two specific characteristics separate the two species. The juvenile, immature, spikelet of E. scheuchzeri is spherical (globose) while that of E. altaicum is elongate, only becoming globose with age. The bristles of E. scheuchzeri are soft or pliant while those of E. altaicum are vertical or rigid. More recently, Novoselova (1994a) has maintained E. altaicum as an independent taxon in Asia, where it has been reported most frequently from northwest Russia. She has also tentatively referred the species described as E. tolmatchevi to E. altaicum var. neogaeum (Ladyman 2006). Plants.usda.gov accepts almost all of the species in the table above, including E. russeolum, but not E. polystachion, which it says is a synonym of E. angustifolium. In this summary, I will consider Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum, to include what Ball and Wujek (2002) call E. scheuchzeri, but not to include E. chamissonis C. A. Meyer 1831. Among Colorado species of this genus, E. gracile is fairly easy to identify in flower or fruit. With multiple spikelets, and the culm leaf blade relatively long. E. angustifolium is similar, but has somewhat broader leaves and the culm leaf blade much shorter. E. altaicum can be difficult to separate from E. chamissonis, since the characters are smaller and not very apparent at first. Inventory of any of these species is made more difficult, because often you are standing in a meter of water; and vegetatively these species appear identical with several Carex species, with which they grow.

136

Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, across all of Canada; south to Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In Colorado, in Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Larimer, Montezuma, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, San Juan, and Summit Counties. 68 records at CNHP in 2016, conflated to 37 "occurrences" in 2017. Seven sites on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. 32 sites that had counts of Eriophorum altaicum, ranging from ten to 2,000; average about 510. Ladyman (2004) lists 28 sites for Eriophorum altaicum in Colorado, three of which are on the GMUG. Ladyman (2006) lists four sites for Eriophorum scheuchzeri, one of which is on the GMUG. Habitat. Fens and other wetlands, peaty streamsides, wet meadows, all with high water tables, mostly alpine but some high subalpine, 11,000–12,400 ft elevation. There must be further limits on habitat or germination, but they are so far unknown. On the GMUG, fens and other wetlands, 11,400-12,800 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Fen, Montane-alpine wet meadow and marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial graminoid with long rhizomes, requiring constant high water tables or standing water. Plants are pollinated by wind or water, and fruit dispersed by wind or water (Ladyman 2004-2006). No. No. EO Plants EO Plants 318 1,600 8432 ±10 507 >600 8500 2,000 568 >500 8916 100 803 10 9086 1,000 887 >1,000 9642 150 1199 100 10294 137 1510 >1,000 10409 >200 3191 25 10525 125 3491 100 11485 400 3596* 200 12166 100

3947 30 12167 20 4207 10 12323 100 5351 >1,000 13435 >2,000 5644 1,500 15065* 218 6102 260 15594 600 6316 >1,000 Total >17,000 7405 >200 *. GMUG site

Effects on species and habitat by current management. Most of the GMUG populations are in fens or other wetlands. Two GMUG sites are in designated wilderness areas. One GMUG site is within a ski area permit boundary, where downhill skiing is emphasized; the fen could be compromised

137

by winter grooming activities (Cooper and Arp 2002, Gage and Cooper 2013). One GMUG site is in the alpine zone, in a management area emphasizing semi-primitive motorized recreation, in a small patch of NFS land surrounded by private (patented) land. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Fens and other wetlands with high water tables and undisturbed conditions, both in the wetland, a buffer (usually 100 m) and the contributing watershed. This species is ranked Extremely Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in both the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains based on restriction to high elevation fens and likely susceptible to small changes in the alteration of hydrology (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 9, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ball, Peter W.; and Daniel E. Wujek. 2002. Eriophorum Linnaeus. Pp. 21-27 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cooper, David J.; and Christopher D. Arp. 2002. Prospect Basin fens: Baseline and ski area expansion monitoring for the year 2001. Report, 92 pp. Gage, Edward; and David J. Cooper. 2013. Evaluating snow compaction effects to fen wetlands on Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass of the Routt National Forest. Report, 61 pp. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2004. Eriophorum altaicum Meinshausen var. neogaeum Raymond (whitebristle cottongrass): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 46 pp. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2006. Eriophorum scheuchzeri Hoppe (white cottongrass): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 78 pp. Meinshausen, K. Fr. 1900. Die Cyperaceen der flora Russlands. Acta Horti. Petropoli. 18(5): 221-415 in Raymond 1954. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

138

Shishkin, B.K. 1935. Flora of the USSR (Flora SSSR). Volume III. Botanicheskii Institut Akademii Nauk SSSR, Leningrad. Translated from Russian by the Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel 1964.

Eriophorum chamissonis (Chamisso’s cottongrass)

Eriophorum chamissonis C. A. Meyer 1831 (ERCH7) Common name(s): Chamisso's cottongrass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S3 in Wyoming and S4 in Montana. NatureServe does not list this species from Utah, though Raymond (1954) cites a specimen, and there are ample modern specimens from the Uinta Mountains. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/SNR Taxonomy. See Eriophorum altaicum summary for discussion of taxonomy. Weber and Wittmann (2012) do not accept Eriophorum chamissonis as distinct from E. altaicum in Colorado; but Eriophorum chamissonis is accepted as a separate species by other botanists (Hultén 1968, Cayouette 2004, Ball and Wujek 2002, Ackerfield 2015). There is a large diversity of opinions about species delimitations in Eriophorum. Ball and Wujek (2002) consider Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum and E. russeolum Fries 1836 as synonyms of E. chamissonis. Raymond (1954-1957) considers E. altaicum and E. scheuchzeri as clearly separate, and E. russeolum as a separate species in a different section. Cayouette (2004) largely agrees with Raymond, with a few additions. In this summary, I will consider Eriophorum chamissonis as a species, separate from the E. altaicum-E. scheuchzeri complex. Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, across southern Canada; Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado; restricted to North America, according to Cayouette (2004). In Colorado, in Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Pitkin, Saguache, and San Juan Counties. 21 records at CNHP in 2016, conflated to eight "occurrences" in 2017. Culver and others (2006) give seven sites in Colorado. Six or seven sites on the GMUG. No. EO Plants 4783 1,500 5807 >200 7544 600 8003 200 9742 200,000 12165 16,800 13289 225 13651 131 Total >220,000

139

Abundance and population trend. Eight Colorado populations counted; numbers range from 130 to 200,000. Inventory of any of these species is made more difficult, because often you are standing in a meter of water; and vegetatively these species appear identical with several Carex species, with which they grow. You would expect a lot of variation from year to year, because there would be more flower heads one year than another, but not necessarily more or fewer plants. Habitat. In Colorado, only in subalpine or lower alpine fens, 10,100–11,400 ft. This species seems rare, so there must be other habitat limitations that we don’t know. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial rhizomatous graminoid, reproducing by rhizomes and by seed; pollen dispersed by wind and water. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Two GMUG sites are in wilderness areas. One GMUG site is located between two management areas, one emphasizing semi-primitive motorized recreation and the other emphasizing timber management. There is a lot of illegal off-road/off-trail vehicle use in the area, which may affect the habitat. Any future timber sales would be required to avoid this wetland per existing law. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. High water tables in fens and wetlands, undisturbed conditions in the fen and contributing watershed. This species is ranked Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in both the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains due to the species’ restriction to high elevation fens, presence of high mountains that serve as natural barriers in suitable habitat, and dependence on ice and snow (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 9, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Ball, Peter W.; and Daniel E. Wujek. 2002. Eriophorum Linnaeus. Pp. 21-27 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23,

140

Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cayouette, Jacques. 2004. A taxonomic reviewof the Eriophorum russeolum–E. scheuchzeri complex (Cyperaceae) in North America. Sida 21(2):791-814. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hultén, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1008 pp. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Raymond, Marcel. 1954. What is Eriophorum chamissonis C. A. Meyer? Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 48(1): 65-82. Raymond, Marcel. 1957. The identity of Eriophorum humile Turcz. Contributions from the Institute of Botany of the University of Montréal 70: 95-105. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Eriophorum gracile (slender cottongrass) Eriophorum gracile W. D. J. Koch (ERGR8) Common name(s): slender cotton-grass. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1S2, Fully Tracked. NatureServe says this species is ranked S2 in Colorado. Ranked S3 in Wyoming and Montana, Not Ranked in Idaho. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. See summary for Eriophorum altaicum for discussion about taxonomy, and distinguishing this species from others in the genus. Most botanists accept this as a species (Ball and Wujek 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon, across all of Canada, south to Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; the Dakotas and Nebraska, and eastward; northern Europe, Russia. In Colorado, in Boulder, Conejos, Delta, El Paso, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Larimer, Las Animas, Park, Saguache, San Miguel, and Summit Counties. 25-30 occurrences in Colorado based on herbarium specimens. 25 records at CNHP in 2016; conflated to 16 records in 2017. Six sites on the GMUG.

141

No. Site ID Plants 6523* 100 10144 10 11000 300 13209 100 13211 100 14406 >200 14407 200 14449 >500 14450 >1,000 15066 260

Ho6* ±400 Sa2c* ±50 W485* ±250 Total >3,500 *. GMUG site Abundance and population trend. Thirteen sites in Colorado have been counted or estimated, ranging from 10 to over 1,000; average about 250. Several sites on the GMUG have been counted over several years, and the populations appear stable in numbers. This is a difficult species to count, because it resembles other Eriophorum species vegetatively, as well as the Carex species with which it grows; and the habitat is difficult to access because of deep water. Habitat. Most Colorado sites are in fens, a few wet meadows, 8,100–11,300 ft elevation. On the GMUG, fens and wetlands, 9,400-10,800 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Montane-alpine wet meadow and marsh. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Two GMUG sites are in a wilderness area. Two GMUG sites are in a management area emphasizing roaded natural recreation, in an area grazed by cattle; neither are close to roads or accessible by off-road vehicles. Two sites occur in a permitted ski area, where winter sports are emphasized; these could be subject to habitat loss from snow compaction from winter grooming activities (Gage and Cooper 2013). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. High water tables and undisturbed conditions in fens and other wetlands (including a buffer around them), and in the contributing watersheds. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 9, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

142

Ball, Peter W.; and Daniel E. Wujek. 2002. Eriophorum Linnaeus. Pp. 21-27 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Gage, Edward; and David J. Cooper. 2013. Evaluating snow compaction effects to fen wetlands on Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass of the Routt National Forest. Report, 61 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Gymnocarpium dryopteris (Northern oak fern) 1. Species: Gymnocarpium dryopteris Northern oak fern

CNHP NA Ranked S3 by NatureServe – CNHP is silent on this species Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Gymnocarpium dryopteris as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]:

143

This species is known from 4 occurrences on the GMUG, the most recent from 2004 at Anthracite pass. None of these occurrences have population or trend data. This species is known from around 80 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 4 years

Year Last Observed 2004

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in dark moist spruce forests between 9,000 and 10,500 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Spruce-Fir Forests

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: Analysis of the 2017 NAIP aerial imagery of the spruce forests at all of the known locations show that the trees have not yet begun to die off. However, this species shaded and moist habitats are likely to be negatively impacted by canopy loss due to the ongoing spruce beetle outbreak on the GMUG. The spruce fir habitat of this species is considered to be moderately vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change (Neely et al 2011). There are no known management impacts to this species on the GMUG.

144

Hamatocaulis vernicosus (hamatocaulis moss) 1. Species: Hamatocaulis vernicosus hamatocaulis moss

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of hamatocaulis moss Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5/S1S3

CNHP G5/S1S3 Ranked between Critically Imperiled and Vulnerable in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, and ITIS recognize Hamatocaulis vernicosus as valid. Ackerfield and Weber and WittTmann are silent on the species since those floras don’t cover non-vascular plants.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 2 occurrences on the GMUG in 2017. One at Middle Beaver Creek Fen near Beaver park west of the Lizard Head Wilderness and at Forgotten Fen near Red Mountain. Neither of these occurrences have population nor trend data. This species is known from 3 other records for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2017

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in fens at 9,000 (Middle Beaver Creek Fen) and 11,000 ft (Forgotten Fen). The Middle Beaver Creek fen is not forested and is 0.19 acres in size. The Forgotten fen is surrounded by spruce fir trees and is 1.86 acres.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Fens.

145

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: Known from two isolated occurrences on the GMUG, these populations are restricted to a small fen areas, less than 2 acres total, and are isolated from other occurrences of this species. Populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al 2011). The Middle Beaver Creek fen is known to have high severity disturbance from grazing which is impacting the vegetation and soils, and medium severity disturbance from a drainage ditch and a nearby road which is causing impacts to hydrology, vegetation, and soils according to Johnston et al. 2002.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 Johnston, Barry C.; Benjamin T. Stratton; Warren R. Young; Liane L. Mattson; John M. Almy; and Gay T. Austin. 2012. Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Report to Forest Supervisor, 209 pp. Delta, Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. April 6, 2012. Published on World Wide Web. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Hippochaete variegate (variegated scouringrush) Hippochaete variegata (Schleicher ex F. Weber & D. Mohr) Bruhin (HIVA) Equisetum variegatum Schleicher Common name(s): variegated scouringrush, variegated horsetail.

146

Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah and South Dakota, S2S3 in Wyoming. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Hauke 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012 as Hippochaete variegata, Ackerfield 2015 as Equisetum variegatum ssp. variegatum). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Labrador, south through all of Canada to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Baca, Delta, Dolores, Eagle, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jefferson, Lake, La Plata, Larimer, Las Animas, Montezuma, Park, Pueblo, Routt, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, Summit, Teller, Weld, and Yuma Counties. Nine records at CNHP. Ten to twelve known locations on the GMUG. No.

EO Plants

2802 >100

4198 1,000

5297* 2,000

6041 >250

8193* ±500

11755 >1,000

14681 >100

*GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. Seven Colorado populations have been counted, ranging from greater than 100 to 2,000. At some locations, this species has been misidentified as Equisetum arvense, which it resembles. Habitat. In Colorado, wet soils in various situations, including disturbed soil around stock ponds, stream sides, fens, montane riparian areas and wetlands, and seeps, 5,000–11,400 ft elevation. On the GMUG, shaded streamsides, streamside wetlands, and fens, 9,300-11,400 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Fen, Montane-alpine wet meadow and marsh.

147

Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Dioecious perennial plants with underground rhizomes, reproduction in cones, dispersal of spores by wind and water. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Effects observed at GMUG sites include road construction (Cottonwood Pass) and maintenance, ditch construction and maintenance, and competition from invasive species. Species seems capable of tolerating fairly high levels of disturbance from road and ditch activities, but invasive species and herbicide spraying of those species are risk factors. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Riparian areas, wetlands, and streambanks in good condition. Undisturbed conditions not necessary, because of tolerance of species for some disturbance. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 24, 2016, revised June 10, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hauke, Richard L. 1993. Equisetum Linnaeus. In Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Iliamna grandiflora (large flower globe-mallow) Iliamna grandiflora (Rydberg ) Wiggins (ILGR) Sphaeralcea grandiflora Rydberg Common name(s): largeflower wild hollyhock, large-flower globe-mallow. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3?Q/S1S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S3? in New Mexico, not ranked in Utah or Arizona. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3?Q/S1S2 Taxonomy. There has been confusion about identification of this species for some time. Wiggins (1936) cites a number of difficulties in separating Iliamna grandiflora from I. rivularis, and some

148

specimens have been annotated differently by different botanists. The latest revisions (Bodo Slotta 2000, Bates 2015) have three species in western Colorado: Iliamna rivularis, I. grandiflora, and I. crandallii. Iliamna crandallii is endemic to the mountains of northwestern Colorado. Iliamna rivularis is by far the most common species in the genus; the other six species in the genus are all endemics and have been considered at some time for conservation status. All six of these endemic species occur within the large range of I. rivularis. Weber and Wittmann (2012) describe all three species: Iliamna rivularis, I. grandiflora, and I. crandallii. Ackerfield (2015) synonymizes grandiflora and crandallii under Iliamna rivularis. Distribution. Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. In Colorado, in Garfield, Jackson, La Plata, Ouray, Montezuma, Pitkin, Routt, and Saguache Counties. 14 records at CNHP. Six or seven reported occurrences on the GMUG. No.

EO Plants

1135* >100

5035 8

5734 10

6499 3

7868 53

8147 3

8303 1

9707 1

10678 6

13612 5

* GMUG site Abundance and population trend. Ten Colorado populations have been counted; mostly the populations are small; one of the GMUG populations is >100. Several of the recorded locations for Iliamna grandiflora have been revisited with no plants found, though the plants and flowers are large and conspicuous. This has caused legitimate concern among conservation biologists. I believe that these populations require some kind of disturbance for their maintenance, based on my studies at one of the larger populations on the GMUG. In particular, disturbance is apparently needed that heats the soil – removing other plants, exposing the soil to direct sunlight, or fire. Another species in the genus, Iliamna bakeri, “occupies open, burned areas” in northeastern California and southern Oregon, and is described as “fire-following” (Arneson and others 2004). They also demonstrated that pollination by a specialist native bee was necessary for seed-set. In another species, the very rare Iliamna corei of Virginia, seed germination was considerably improved by applying heat (Baskin and Baskin 1997). Another species, Iliamna longisepala, endemic to Washington, “has been observed to respond favorably during the first growing season after wildfire events” (Washington Natural Heritage Program 2000). Habitat. In Colorado, gravelly roadsides and road cuts in forests (Douglas-fir or aspen or spruce or piñon-juniper) or sagebrush, along trails in serviceberry-oak stands, 6,800–9,300 ft elevation. A

149

native plant, yet natural habitat unknown. On the GMUG, moist roadsides, in aspen, Douglas-fir- aspen, or spruce-fir-aspen forest, 8,900-9,300 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Aspen Forest, Cool Moist Mixed Conifer Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Large herbaceous perennial plants, apparently requiring disturbance with heat (like fire) for growth and germination. Large leaves and thick stems imply that plants would do best where site is subirrigated. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Apparently, protection of shrubland, piñon- juniper, and montane forests from fire has caused declines in this species. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Natural fire frequencies and intensities in piñon-juniper, mountain shrubland, and montane forests. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 24, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Arneson, Laura C.; Vincent J. Tepedino; and Sheri L. Smith. 2004. Reproductive success of Baker’s globe mallow and its association with a native specialist bee. Northwest Science 78(2): 141- 149. Baskin, Jerry M; and Carol C. Baskin. 1997. Methods of breaking seed dormancy in the endangered species Iliamna corei (Sherff) Sherff (Malvaceae), with special attention to heating. Natural Areas Journal 17(4): 313-323. Bates, David M. 2015. Iliamna Greene. In Flora of North America Volume 6. Bodo Slotta, Tracey A. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of Iliamna (Malvaceae) using the internal transcribed spacer region. M. S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 70 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Wiggins, Ira L. 1936. A resurrection and revision of the genus Iliamna Greene. Contributions from the Dudley Herbarium of Stanford University 1(7): 213-229, plate 20.

Juncus bryoides (minute rush) Juncus bryoides F. J. Hermann (JUBR5) Common name(s): moss rush, minute rush.

150

Rank (CNHP 2017): G4/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Idaho and Utah, not ranked in other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species since published in 1948 (Hermann 1975, Brooks 2000, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California; Baja California Norte. In Colorado in Moffatt and Mesa Counties. One record from Colorado at CNHP: from the GMUG, a 1979 herbarium specimen.

Abundance and population trend. No abundance records from Colorado sites. Habitat. In Colorado and Utah, sub-irrigated or spring-fed moist sandstone benches, with sagebrush or mountain-mahogany, 7,800–8,600 ft elevation (CNHP, Goodrich and Neese 1986). Habitat not stated in GMUG record, probably spring-fed sandstone benches in sagebrush, 8,600 ft. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Sagebrush shrubland, Montane shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Annual species, flowering in the spring. The plants are tiny, on the order of a centimeter tall, with one flower each. Being an annual, it may not emerge every year. Effects on species and habitat by current management. GMUG site probably occurs in an area grazed by livestock, unknown whether near road or trail. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 24, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

151

Brooks, Ralph E. 2000. Juncus subgenus Graminifolii Buchenau. In Flora of North America Volume 22. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Goodrich, S. and Neese, E., 1986. Uinta Basin flora. USDA Forest Service-Intermountain Region, in cooperation with USDA Forest Service-Ashley National Forest and USDI Bureau of Land Management-Vernal District. Hermann, Frederick J. 1975. Manual of the rushes (Juncus spp.) of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Basin. General Technical Report RM-18, 107 pp. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Jungermannia rubra (Liverwort with no common name) 1. Species: Jungermannia rubra Liverwort with No Common Name

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of unnamed liverwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G2G4/S1S2 Between Globally Imperiled and Globally Apparently Secure

CNHP G2G4/S1S2 Ranked between Critically Imperiled and Imperiled in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, NatureServe, CNHP, and ITIS recognize Jungermannia rubra as valid. Ackerfield, The Flora of North America, and Weber and Wittmann are silent on the species since those floras don’t cover liverworts.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]:

152

This species is known from 2 occurrences on the GMUG in 1998 at an iron fen called Crayola Iron Fen about 1 mile east of Ophir and at Wager Gulch Iron Fen on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River in 2001. Neither occurrences have population nor trend data. This species is known from 1 other record for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 years

Year Last Observed 2001

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was observed on the GMUG at 10,000ft in the Crayola Iron Fen which is about 7.5 acres in size and at the Wager Gulch Iron Fen is at 11,200 ft. and is around 40 acres in size but it bisected by a dirt road.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Fens

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: Known from 2 small and isolated occurrences on the GMUG, this population is restricted to a small fen area and is isolated from other occurrences of this species. Populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). The Wager Gulch Iron Fen is subject to documented risk factors, including being bisected by a busy 4 x 4 trail (with impacts from dust and illegal off-road vehicles) and there’s a closed road that may impact the hydrology of the fen. This species is listed as a G2 due to its rarity by NatureServe. G2 species are expected to be included as SCC unless it can be shown that the threats to it do not operate on the GMUG. There are documented and known threats to this species on the GMUG.

153

Kobresia simpliciuscula (simple bog sedge) Kobresia simpliciuscula (Wahlenberg) Mackenzie (KOSI2) Common name(s): simple bog sedge. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon; S2 in Idaho. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Ball 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2016). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Labrador and Newfoundland, through all of Canada, south to Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. In Colorado, Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Grand, Gunnison, and Park Counties. Decker and others (2006) list 27 sites for this species in Colorado. Seven sites in CNHP data, including four sites where K. simpliciuscula is dominant. Two sites on the GMUG. At one of these sites (Cement Creek), only a small fraction of the site is on NFS land; this site also has Trichophorum pumilum, Hippochaete variegata, and Carex viridula.

Abundance and population trend. One Colorado site (not on GMUG) has been counted, at about 30 plants, scattered among more numerous Kobresia myosuroides. “The clonal nature of K.

154

simpliciuscula makes it impossible to obtain accurate field counts of genetic individuals” (Decker and others 2006). No trend data. Habitat. In Colorado, on hummocks in rich fens, margins of fens, wet tundra, alpine lake margins, almost always in calcareous water or on calcareous rock, 9,300–12,300 ft elevation. On the GMUG, calcareous fens, 9,300-9,500 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Long-lived herbaceous perennial graminoid, propagating by seed, wind-pollinated (Decker and others 2006). Effects on species and habitat by current management. At one of the GMUG sites (Cement Creek), only a small fraction of the population of Kobresia simpiciuscula is on NFS land; the NFS portion occupies a small strip between private land and a heavily-travelled gravel road; the portion on private land is grazed. The other site, in Taylor Park, is a large wetland close to a heavily- travelled gravel road. The second site is grazed by cattle, and also used by elk, deer, and moose. The second site is managed to emphasize roaded natural recreation (USDA Forest Service 1991). There are noticeable effects of trampling by livestock and wild herbivores on the upper edges, and some illegal off-road vehicle tracks have been observed. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed fens and wetlands, with continuous water source. This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). This species grows on the margins of fens so is more sensitive to small changes. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 29, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Literature Cited Ball, Peter W. 2002. Kobresia Willdenow. Pp. 252-253 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 23: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Decker, Karin; Denise R. Culver; and David G. Anderson. 2006. Kobresia simpiciuscula (Wahlenberg) Mackenzie (simple bog sedge): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 pp. Published online. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

155

Rocchio, Joe. 2006. Rocky Mountain subalpine-montane fen ecological system: Ecological integrity assessment. 78 pp. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Lilium philadelphicum (wood lily) 1. Species: Lilium philadelphicum wood lily

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Wood lily Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5/S3S4 Globally secure

CNHP G5/S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently secure in Colorado – watch listed by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America and Weber and Wittmann recognize Lilium philadelphicun as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species was collected in 1958 in Pitkin, Colorado. It is unclear from the collection notes if this was collected on NFS lands on the GMUG. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 1

Year Last Observed 1958

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Wood lily grows in wet meadows and shaded forests. There is not habitat information from the collection from Pitkin.

156

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: It is unknown if this species occurs on the GMUG.

Listera borealis (northern twayblade) Listera borealis Morong (LIBO4) Common name(s): northern twayblade. Rank (CNHP 2017): G4/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Oregon and Utah, S2 in Wyoming, S2S3 in Montana, and S3 in Washington. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Magrath and Coleman 2003, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon, throughout Canada, south to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. 21 records from Colorado at CNHP. In Colorado from Chaffee, Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Lake, Mesa, Pitkin, and Summit Counties. Ten to twelve GMUG sites. EO No. Plants

112 27

1402 25

2545 39

5260 3

5422 10

157

6966 18

7304 33

7555 50

9243* 4

10784 >100

10929 >100

13337 ±300

14493 20

Total >730

*. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. Thirteen Colorado populations counted; size range from three to three hundred, average 56. Most populations fairly small. No trend data. Habitat. “Moist, rich humus of mossy coniferous or mixed hardwood forests, swamps, often along cold streams fed by melting snow, prefers high acidic soils” (Magrath and Coleman 2003). In Colorado, usually in rich, moist, mossy, deeply shaded spruce forests, 9,000–11,900 ft. There is a lot of these habitats in wilderness areas in Colorado, although such habitats are being reduced by the spruce beetle epidemic. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodland, old growth Spruce-Fir Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small orchid, perennial herbaceous plants. Seeds are small, carried by wind, with short viability time (Heidel and Laursen 2002). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Several of the GMUG sites are in areas designated for timber management, which has potential for damaging Listera borealis habitat. Motorized off-road vehicles would be damaging, if access were provided. These habitats are sensitive also to foot travel. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Deep, moist spruce forests, with mossy floors. Some of these sites would qualify as old-growth. Spruce-fir forests on the GMUG are undergoing a major spruce beetle outbreak that has caused significant canopy loss across the plan area, altering this species' habitat and greatly reducing the extent of this habitat on the GMUG. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

158

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Heidel, Bonnie; and Scott Laursen. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5328261.pdf Magrath, Lawrence K.; and Ronald A. Coleman. 2003. Listera R, Brown. In Flora of North America Volume 26. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Lomatium bicolor (Oregon biscuitroot) 148. Lomatium bicolor (S. Watson) J. M. Coulter & Rose var. leptocarpum (Torrey & A. Gray) Schlessman Lomatium leptocarpum (Torrey and A. Gray) J. M. Coulter and Rose (LOBIL) Common name(s): Wasatch desertparsely, Oregon biscuitroot Rank (CNHP 2017): G4T3T4/S1 Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Wyoming, Not Ranked in other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4T3T4/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as Lomatium bicolor var. leptocarpum by some botanists (Schlessman 1984, Weber and Wittmann 2012); but as Lomatium leptocarpum by some (Cronquist and others 1997, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, California, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. In Colorado, in Delta, Grand, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties. 35-40 sites in Colorado represented by herbarium specimens. Three records at CNHP. Twelve to fifteen sites on the GMUG.

159

Abundance and population trend. None of the Colorado populations has been counted. Habitat. In Colorado, clay hillsides, gully sides, often with sagebrush, 5,800–9,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Sagebrush Shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Prostrate perennial herbaceous plants with deep, tuberous roots. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Five to eight GMUG sites are managed to emphasize livestock forage. Three to five sites are managed to emphasize big game winter range. A few are managed to emphasize roaded natural recreation. The plants are fairly resistant to livestock and big game trampling, and the habitats have a certain amount of soil movement. It is likely that management effects are slight. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable, undisturbed clay hillsides This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 28, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

160

Schlessman, Mark A. 1984. Systematics of tuberous Lomatiums. Systematic Botany Monographs 4:1-55. Torrey, J. and Gray, A., 1969. A flora of North America (Vol. 2). Hafner Pub. Co.. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Lomatium concinnum (Colorado desert-parsley) Lomatium concinnum (Osterhout ) Mathias (LOCO2) Common name(s): adobe desertparsley, Colorado desert-parsley. Rank (CNHP 2016): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2G3/S2S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Mathias 1938, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Delta, Montrose, and Ouray Counties; likely will be found in Gunnison County someday. 85 records at CNHP in 2016, collapsed to 42 in 2017. Two or three sites on the GMUG, both north of Crawford. The sites on GMUG are from three herbarium specimens from 1997, very generally located. One specimen is from "piñon and juniper, 6,500- 7,500 ft" located somewhere within two sections (2 square miles); another specimen is from the same area but says "piñon-juniper slopes and woodland, 6,880-8,160 ft" within 1½ square miles. A third specimen is "piñon-juniper, 6,500-7500 ft" within a different 1½ square miles. Searches for these locations have so far been fruitless, and the collectors don't remember exactly where they were when the specimens were collected. None of the specimens from the GMUG has abundance information. No. EO No. Plants EO Plants 91 >2,000 6563 >200 238 >2,000 6854 500 409 65 6869 >1,800 551 100 7091 60 616 1,000 7443 300 783 >5,600 7444 300 805 >1,000 8072 >600 950 2,000 8188 1,500 2348 80 8506 >2,000 2609 >500 8981 500 2663 1,000 9118 160 3149 230 9380 300 3150 260 9623 >260 3290 100 9957 118,000 3619 2,400 10032 80 3867 900 10142 5,000 4023 300 10766 500 4334 300 11227 260

161

4577 200 12368 600 5628 300 Total >154,000 6195 10 6461 78 Abundance and population trend. Populations are often large to very large; 41 sites have been counted, ranging from 10 to 118,000, average about 3,700. Neither site on the GMUG has any counts or estimates. Trend data unavailable. Habitat. Sparsely vegetated adobe hills and openings in piñon-juniper, saltbush, or sagebrush, usually derived from Mancos shale, 5,300–7,600 ft elevation. On the GMUG, the meager habitat information on herbarium specimen labels indicates slopes and openings within piñon-juniper stands, 6,500-8,200 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Openings and barren slopes, probably mapped within Piñon-Juniper Woodland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants from a slender taproot. Demographics and population structure unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The two GMUG sites are managed to emphasize big game winter range; they are moderately heavily used by mule deer and elk in late fall and early spring. The area is grazed in the summer by cattle. On adjacent and nearby BLM sites, no effects by these animals have been noted; the plants seem to be at least somewhat resistant to trampling by large herbivores, and the sites are often loose slopes where large animals seldom go. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintaining viability of the larger population would entail adobe hills and openings in piñon-juniper and sagebrush with a relatively low level of erosion and disturbance. This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is ranked Extremely Vulnerable (with very high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change on BLM lands in Colorado (CNHP 2015). This Colorado state‐wide rank is based barriers to movement, likelihood of short seed dispersal distances, lack of range of variation in annual precipitation in the last 50 years, potential increases in fire frequency in occupied habitat, potential decrease in soil moisture availability and potential for wind, solar, and biofuel development in occupied habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

162

Lomatogonium rotatum (marsh felwort) 1. Species: Lomatogonium rotatum marsh felwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of marsh felwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5/SNR Between Globally Imperiled and Globally Apparently Secure

CNHP G5/S2 Ranked between Critically Imperiled and Imperiled in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, Ackerfield, The Flora of North America, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Lomatogonium rotatum as valid. Weber and Wittmann have the Colorado occurrences as subspecies tenuifolium.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 1 occurrence on the GMUG in 2009 at a fen called Hobbs Fen just east of Taylor Park Reservoir. This occurrence does not have population or trend data. This species is known from around 70 other records for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 years

Year Last Observed 2009

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was observed on the GMUG in a single fen at 9,400 ft. in the Hobbs Fen which is about 8.3 acres in size.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Fens.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: Known from a single isolated occurrences on the GMUG, this population is restricted to a small fen area and is isolated from other occurrences of this species. Populations that are small and/or isolated from

163

other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is rated as Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to the impacts of climate change in the Gunnison Basin (Neely et al 2011). The fen habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because of potential alterations in the summer monsoon cycle and groundwater alterations from changes in precipitation. Johnston et al. 2012 note that Hobbs fen is highly impacted by ATV trails, a road, and livestock grazing.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 Johnston, Barry C.; Benjamin T. Stratton; Warren R. Young; Liane L. Mattson; John M. Almy; and Gay T. Austin. 2012. Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Report to Forest Supervisor, 209 pp. Delta, Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. April 6, 2012. Published on World Wide Web. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Luzula subcapitata (Colorado woodrush) Luzula subcapitata (Rydberg ) Harrington 1954 (LUSU9) Juncoides subcapitatum Rydberg 1904 Common name(s): Colorado wood-rush. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming.

164

Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most Colorado and Wyoming botanists (Coffee Swab 2000, Weber and Wittmann 2012. Ackerfield 2015). EO No. Indiv. 13739* >150 13740 100 Total >250 *. GMUG site

Distribution. Colorado and Wyoming. In Colorado, in Boulder, Clear Creek, Chaffee, Conejos, Eagle, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Larimer, Mineral, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, San Juan, and Summit Counties. 25-30 sites in Colorado represented by herbarium specimens. Six records at CNHP in 2016; four in 2017. Eight sites on the GMUG; one of these sites, Taylor Pass, is shared with 10-15 other candidate conservation-concern plant species. Abundance and population trend. Two Colorado populations have been counted, 100-150 individuals. No trend data available. Habitat. Wet peaty soil, stream sides, lake shores, and fens, mostly alpine but some high subalpine, 10,600–13,000 ft elevation. On the GMUG, damp to wet soils of marshes, fens, and lake shores, high subalpine to middle alpine, 11,800-12,700 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Fen, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial rush with short, thick rhizomes. Presumably pollination by wind and water, propagation by seed. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Four GMUG sites are in wilderness areas. One GMUG site is located in a management area where roaded natural recreation is featured; another site is in a management area that emphasizes semi-primitive motorized recreation. These two sites are vulnerable to off-road vehicles; one of them is very close to a road planned for reconstruction (Cottonwood Pass). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Wetlands, lake shores, and fens with high water tables and without disturbance. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and the San Juan Mountains based on restriction to high elevation fens likely susceptible to small changes in the alteration of hydrology (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

165

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Coffee Swab, Janice. 2000. Luzula De Candolle. In Flora of North America Volume 22. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy-aster) Machaeranthera coloradoensis (A. Gray) Osterhout Xanthisma coloradoense (A. Gray) D. R. Morgan and R. L. Hartman (XACO8), Aster coloradoensis A. Gray, Xylorhiza brandegei Rydberg, M. coloradoensis var. brandegei (Rydberg) T. J. Watson & R. L. Hartman Common name(s): Colorado tansy-aster. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Wyoming Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Known previously as Machaeranthera coloradoensis (still considered such by NRCS Plants National Database). In former decades, M. coloradoensis var. brandegei was recognized at higher elevations in southern Colorado (Hartman 1976). In the Flora of North America, this is put into the genus Xanthisma, as Xanthisma coloradoense (A. Gray) D. R. Morgan and R. L. Hartman, without any subspecies or varieties (Hartman 2006). This is recognized by Weber and Wittmann (2012) and Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Colorado and southern Wyoming. In Colorado, in Chaffee, Dolores, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, La Plata, Moffat, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, and San Juan Counties. 61 sites in Colorado, including the 29 records at CNHP. Fifteen to twenty sites on the GMUG. No. No. EO Plants EO Plants 1565 >1,500 11500* 500 1566 >500 11501* 20

166

1953 2 11505* 91 3236 1,000 12272 1,000 3394 1,000 12273 5,000 3852 3,000 13105 >100 4013 >1,500 13286 2,000 4980 300 13717 150 5521 >200 13719 >1,000 6066 700 15451 80 9457 >700 Total >20,500 11496* 100 *. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend on the GMUG. Beatty and others (2004) list 24 Colorado occurrences. 22 populations in Colorado have been counted, ranging from two to five thousand, average about 925. Four GMUG populations have been counted, all in subalpine parklands, ranging from 20 to 500; alpine populations have not been counted, probably they are small. Habitat. In Colorado, on calcareous substrates, ridgetops, parklands, and alpine swales, sparsely vegetated, upper montane to subalpine to middle alpine, 7,700–13,000 ft elevation (Beatty and others 2004). In Colorado, ecosystems include park grassland, open bristlecone pine or ponderosa pine forests, piñon-juniper woodlands, and alpine fellfields, ridges, and meadows. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Occurs on calcareous substrates in open, unshaded sites within the Sagebrush, Montane–Subalpine Grasslands, Bristlecone-Limber Pine Forest, Pinyon-Juniper, and Alpine Uplands ecosystems. Effects on species and habitat by current management. About fifteen GMUG sites in subalpine parkland are in a management area focusing on big game winter range; this area is also grazed by cattle in summer. There are many small roads and trails, and is crossed by a gravel county road; illegal off-road vehicle travel is minimal. Here Xanthisma coloradense can be seen on roadsides and in open parks with sparse sagebrush and fescue. The populations seem to be stable over several decades. The area also has timber sales ongoing and planned for the future in the spruce forests above, that are being decimated by the spruce beetle. The plants are not palatable to herbivores, and are resistant to trampling, at least in moderate amounts. Five GMUG site are in alpine ecosystems, in a management area emphasizing semi-primitive motorized recreation. Here the populations of Xanthisma coloradoense are subject to illegal off- road, off-trail vehicles, a popular activity in this area; effects of this on the species or its habitats are unknown. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. In the parkland habitats, stable undisturbed surfaces, with soil loss within normal tolerances. In the alpine habitats, stable alpine surfaces with undisturbed conditions. Subalpine parkland populations seem stable, even under moderate livestock and road use. Alpine populations are probably more vulnerable. This species is ranked Presumed Stable (with low confidence) in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains in the face of climate change due to the species’ capability for long distance seed

167

dispersal. Species is known to occur on a very wide range of substrates (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Also, the species is likely adapted to a broad moisture and temperature regime. Data Sources. CNHP records for 2016 and 2017, Herbarium specimens at COLO, CS, RM, BRY, WSC, RMBL. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 11, 2016, revised May 23, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Beatty, Brenda; William Jennings; and Rebecca Rawlinson. 2004. Townsendia rothrockii Gray ex Rothrock (Rothrock Townsend daisy): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 39 pp. Published online. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hartman, Ronald L. 2006. Xanthisma de Candolle. In Flora of North America volume 20. Herbaria and Collections Consortium of North American Bryophyte Herbaria. http://bryophyteportal.org/portal/collections/list.php J. Handwerk, B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Minuartia stricta (bog stitchwort) 1. Species: Minuartia stricta bog stitchwort

CNHP S1 Critically imperiled in Colorado due to small populations and few occurences

168

Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, and the Flora of North America recognize this species as Minuartia stricta. NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Alsinanthe stricta.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 2 occurrences on the GMUG, one collection on north Italian Mountain in 1949 and from Trico Peak in 2012. Neither of these occurrences have population nor trend data. This species is known from around 10 records total for Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in alpine boulder fields. This species is a small mat forming alpine plant.

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely at al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Similarly, a near relative (and potential SCC species) House’s stitchwort (Minuartia macrantha) that shares habitat with bog stitchwort is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change due to its reliance on snow and ice, short seed dispersal, and barriers to migration (Handwerk et al. 2014). It stands to reason that since bog and House’s stitchwort have the same morphology and ecology that the threats to the two species will be the same. Bog stitchwort is considerably more rare on the GMUG and in Colorado as a whole. This species is known from only one location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

169

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. J. Handwerk, B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

9. Map of Known Occurrences

170

Monardella oderatissima (mountain wildmint) Monardella odoratissima Bentham (MOOD) Monardella glauca Greene, Monardella odoratissima Bentham ssp. glauca (Greene) Epling Common name(s): mountain monardella, mountain wild mint. Rank (CNHP 2017): G4G5/S2, Fully Tracked (CNHP website of February 2017). Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4G5/SNR Taxonomy. The Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah plants have been accepted as Monardella odoratissima by most botanists (Cronquist and others 1984, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Recently, however, Elvin and Sanders (2009) have stated, preparatory to the upcoming Flora of North America treatment, that the Colorado-Wyoming-Utah plants belong to Monardella odoratissima Bentham ssp. glauca (Greene) Epling. Distribution. Monardella odoratissima ssp. glauca is distributed in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California. In Colorado, in Gunnison, Garfield, Rio Blanco, San Miguel, Ouray, Delta, and Montrose Counties. About 16 sites on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. Five records at CNHP, though there are 57 herbarium specimens in local herbaria, representing about 35 different sites. Four Colorado populations counted, ranging from very small to very large. No trend data.

171

EO No. Plants

345* >5,000

4733* 3

5785 12

8064 ±100

Total >5,115

*. GMUG site

Habitat. In Colorado, rocky sites, including steep cliffs and outcrops, gravelly slopes, openings in Douglas-fir, aspen, and spruce-fir forests, open sagebrush stands, cliffs, talus below cliffs; there does not seem to be a preference for geology, and spans a wide range of elevations, 6,400– 10,700 ft elevation. There must be other, as yet unknown, limitations on germination or growth of the species, because these are general habitats, present in many other sites on the GMUG. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Spruce-Fir Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest, Alpine Uplands, Sagebrush Shrublands, Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest, Warm-Dry Mixed Conifer Montane-Subalpine Grasslands, Rocky slopes, screes, cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Long-lived herbaceous perennial plants. Relatively large, heavy seeds that do not travel far from the parent plant, but are long-lived and may be transported by ants or small mammals (Coles 2002, Handley & Laursen 2002). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Probably few effects on these habitats. Two of the sites on the GMUG are managed as big game winter range; two or three sites managed to emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation, and two or three sites managed for semi- primitive non-motorized recreation. It is unlikely this species is palatable to elk or cattle; perhaps to domestic sheep. The cliffs are unlikely to be affected by motorized recreation. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Habitats generally described, wide range of rocky habitats, making it difficult to describe what ecological conditions might be necessary for the species. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

172

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Coles, Janet J. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5275018.pdf Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cronquist, Arthur; Arthur H. Holmgren; Noel H. Holmgren; James L. Reveal; and Patricia K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U. S. A., Volume 4: Subclass Asteridae (except Asteraceae). Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden, 573 pp. Elvin, M.A. and Sanders, A.C., 2009. Nomenclatural Changes for Monardella (Lamiaceae) in California. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature, 19(3), pp.315-343. Handley, Joy; and Scott Laursen. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5277406.pdf NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Myosurus cupulatus (western mouse-tail) Myosurus cupulatus S. Watson (MYCU) Myosurus nitidus Eastwood Common name(s): Arizona mousetail, western mouse-tail. Rank (CNHP 2017): G4/S1, Fully Tracked. S3 in Arizona, Not Ranked in New Mexico, Utah, and other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4/S1? Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Campbell 1952, Whittemore 1997, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015).

173

Distribution. Arizona, California, Texas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Sonora, Baja California. In Colorado in Mesa, Montezuma, Montrose, and San Miguel Counties. About six to seven records in Colorado, one record at CNHP, partly on the GMUG, not counted. One site on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. No abundance or trend data available. Habitat. In Colorado, disturbed, ruderal sites on rocky slopes or meadows within piñon-juniper, sagebrush, or oak-serviceberry stands, often north-facing, 5,300–7,200 ft elevation. These are tiny annual plants with linear basal leaves, often overlooked. Either there are more limitations on habitat, or we haven’t found all the populations. On the GMUG, disturbed opening within a piñon-juniper-oak-serviceberry stand. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Piñon-Juniper Woodland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Tiny annual herbaceous plants. Probably only appearing when moisture is available at the right time. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The one GMUG site is managed for emphasis on big game winter range, but it is near a trail. Effects are difficult to determine since this is an annual plant often growing in ruderal situations. This species may easily be mis-identified as an invasive species, and as such is at-risk of mortality from herbicide spraying of invasive plants. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Unknown, difficult to predict. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

The habitats of this species (Juniper, sagebrush, oak shrublands) are ranked Presumed Stable (with medium confidence) in the face of climate change since they may replace other habitat types with changes in precipitation and temperature (CNHP 2015). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

174

Campbell, Gloria R. 1952. The genus Myosurus L. (Ranunculaceae) in North America. El Aliso 2(4): 389-403. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Whittemore, Alan T. 1997. Myosurus Linnaeus. Pp. 135-138 in Flora of North America north of Mexico, volume 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 590 pp.

Packera paupercula (balsan groundsel) 1. Species: Packera paupercula balsam groundsel

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of balsam groundsel Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5/S1

CNHP S1 Critically imperiled in Colorado due to small populations and few occurrences Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize the taxa Packera paupercula as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 1 occurrences on the GMUG, collected in 2010 on the Uncompahgre National Forest: area between Cow Creek and Green Mountain trailheads, where County Road 12 ends at Cow Creek, ca 32 air mi SSW of Montrose this occurrence is a new record for Ouray County. The GMUG occurrence does not have population or trend data. This species is known from around 20 records total for Colorado. This species is fully tracked by CNHP but there are no Element Occurrences for it.

175

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 years

Year Last Observed 2010

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG on a gravel bar in mixed conifer forest along Cow Creek at around 8400 ft in elevation.

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodland.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: Balsam groundsel grows in moist meadows and along streamsides in Colorado. Alteration of hydrology and recreation are typical threats in such areas in Colorado as is spruce die off. It is unknown if these threats operate on Cow Creek on the GMUG. This is the only known location of this species on the GMUG. Populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. Low elevation riparian areas in the Gunnison Basin are considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change; mid-elevation riparian areas in the Gunnison Basin are considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with medium confidence) to negative impacts from climate change (Neely et al. 2014).

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Packer paupercula treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

176

9. Map of Known Occurrences

Packera crocata (saffron ragwort) 1. Species: Packera crocata saffron ragwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of saffron ragwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4/S3S4 Globally apparently secure

CNHP NA This species is not ranked by CNHP. Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

177

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America and Weber and Wittmann recognize Packera crocata.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from at least 35 collections on the GMUG NF, the most recent in 2012. This species occurs in moist alpine meadows and subalpine slopes. There are 174 collections in Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 35

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Saffron ragwort grows in moist alpine meadows and subalpine slopes between 8,000 and 13,000 ft. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands, Montane-Subalpine Grasslands.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

178

Papaver radicatum ssp. kluanense (alpine poppy) 1. Species: Papaver radicatum ssp. kluanense alpine poppy

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of alpine poppy Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5T4/S3S4 Globally secure

CNHP G5T4/S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently secure in Colorado – watch listed by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, Ackerfield, and the Flora of North America recognize Papaver radicatum ssp. kluanense as valid. Weber and Wittmann recognize Papaver kluanense.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 3 collections on the GMUG NF, the most recent in 1998 in the La Garita Wilderness near San Luis Peak on alpine talus. The other 2 collections are from an alpine ridge in the Elk Mountains and from alpine tundra in the Uncompahgre Wilderness near Sheep Mountain. There are no threat, trend, or population information from the collections. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 3

Year Last Observed 1998

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Alpine poppy grows in dry and rocky alpine areas along the continental divide.

179

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This species has only three occurrences on the GMUG; populations that are small and/or isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Pellaea atropurpurea (purple cliff brake) 177. Pellaea atropurpurea (L. ) Link (PEAT2) Common name(s): purple-stem cliffbrake, purple cliff-brake Rank (NatureServe): G5/S2S3, Not Tracked by CNHP (unknown reason). Ranked S1 in Utah, S2 in Nebraska, Not Ranked in Wyoming, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Windham 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming; eastward through the United States, Ontario, and Quebec; Mexico and Central America. In Colorado in Baca, El Paso, Fremont, Garfield, Larimer, Las Animas, Mesa, Montezuma, Montrose, Otero, Ouray, and San

180

Miguel Counties. Eighteen to twenty sites in Colorado; one or two sites on the GMUG, near Ouray.

Abundance and population trend. Only one Colorado population has been counted, one of the GMUG populations, at less than ten individuals (CNHP 2002). Populations are probably difficult to count, because of inaccessible habitat. Trend data lacking. Habitat. In Colorado, crevices in rim rock or ledges, limestone or sandstone, 4,400–9,000 ft elevation. On the GMUG, mossy cracks in limestone cliffs, 8,800-8,900 ft. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial fern, reproducing by spores. Reproduction is at least partially apogamous, spores are produced without fertilization. The spores are very small, and could be carried by wind and water over large distances. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG sites are managed to emphasize roaded natural recreation. The cliffs themselves are inaccessible except by rock climbers and ice climbers, which could have some effect on the plants. To-date no impacts have been observed/recorded. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable, undisturbed limestone cliffs in the area of this species' sites. This species is known from only 1-2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The habitat that this species occupies has not been analyzed for vulnerability to impacts from climate change. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 26, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

181

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Windham, Michael D. 1993. Pellaea Link. Pp. 175-186 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Windham, Michael D. 1993. Woodsia R. Brown. Pp. 270-280 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp.

Pellaea glabella (smooth cliffbrake) Pellaea glabella Mettenius ex Kuhn (PEGL) Pellaea suksdorfiana Butters Pellaea glabella Mettenius ex Kuhn ssp. simplex (Butters) Á. Löve & D. Löve Common name(s): smooth cliffbrake. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5T4?/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Wyoming; Not Ranked in all other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/SNR Taxonomy. Accepted as a subspecies by most botanists (Windham 1993) Weber and Wittmann (2012) describe it as Pellaea glabella ssp. simplex. Ackerfield (2015) describes two subspecies in Colorado, ssp. simplex and ssp. occidentalis (E. Nelson) Windham, "rare on limestone cliffs and ledges, but could be present on the western slope." Windham (1993), NatureServe, and PLANTS do not allow ssp. occidentalis in Colorado. They are considered together here.

182

NatureServe distribution maps for Pellaea glabella (left), ssp. occidentalis (middle), and ssp. simplex (right). Not Ranked or Under Review (brown); S5 (dark green), S4 (light green), S3 (yellow), S2 (orange), S1 (red). Distribution. Pellaea glabella ssp. simplex in British Columbia and Alberta, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. In Colorado in Baca, Douglas, Fremont, Garfield, Gunnison, Las Animas, Moffatt, Montezuma, Montrose, and San Miguel Counties. 25 records from Colorado at CNHP. Two records from GMUG. No. No. EO Plants EO Plants 591 12 9402 15 2059 30 9549 25 2912 150 10232 50 3137 >30 10291* <20 3810 16 10763 >50 4814 <50 11181 125 5028 40 14701 1 5490 5 15362 2 7066 >100 15363 10 7901 2 15364 20

183

8593 11 Total >760 *. GMUG site Abundance and population trend. Populations have been counted at 21 sites. Sizes range from one to 150, averaging about 35 – fairly small populations. No trend data. Habitat. In Colorado, cracks in moist rock cliffs, outcrops, moist overhangs (hanging gardens), adjacent to waterfalls, 4,600–9,600 ft elevation, variety of geological substrates, sometimes on limestone. On the GMUG, Cracks of outcrops in spruce-fir-aspen forest, sometimes on limestone, 9,000-9,500 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs, also mapped within Spruce-Fir Forest and Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Plants are perennial ferns, reproducing by spores. Reproduction is at least partially apogamous, spores are produced without fertilization. Spores are small and presumably could be carried long distances by wind and water. Effects on species and habitat by current management. It is uncertain whether either of the two sites on the GMUG are actually on NFS land. If so, they are both in management areas with emphasis on semi-primitive motorized recreation; however, given that the plants grow on cliffs and by waterfalls, there motorized recreation impacts are highly unlikely. One site is near a heavily-used county road; the other a popular hiking trail. Both sites are moist enough to discourage rock climbing. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable cliffs in spruce-fir zone, especially limestone cliffs. The habitat that this species occupies has not been analyzed for vulnerability to impacts from climate change Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Penstemon harbourii (Harbour’s beardtongue) 1. Species: Penstemon harbourii Harbour's beardtongue

184

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Harbour’s beardtongue Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G3G4/S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently stable, Colorado endemic G3 is a should consider criteria for SCC CNHP S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently stable in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Penstemon harbourii as a valid taxa.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is endemic to Colorado. This species is known from at least 30 records on the GMUG, most recently collected by Laurie Brummer in 2012. There are more than 250 records of this species in Colorado. Harbour’s beardtongue is not tracked by CNHP so there is no trend or population data available. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 ≥30 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in alpine habitats from 10,500 – 13,800 ft in elevation

Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands.

185

response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

Penstemon mensarum (Grand Mesa penstemon) Penstemon mensarum Pennell (PEME2) Common name(s): tiger beardtongue, Grand Mesa penstemon. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists as a species (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2012). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Garfield, Mesa, Delta, Montrose, and Gunnison Counties. 28 records from Colorado at CNHP, 106 herbarium specimens (COLO, RM, CS, UTC, DBG, etc.). 45- 50 known locations in Colorado; 30-40 locations known on the GMUG. No. EO Plants 782 <50 1411 150 1682 50 2815* >500 5220* ±50

186

5654* >1,000 8675* >600 9628* >300 9703* 20 10501* >2,000 14833* 500 14834* >2,000 14835* 30 Total >7,300 * GMUG Site

Abundance and population trend. Thirteen populations have been counted; population sizes range from twenty to more than two thousand, averaging about 550. Most of these were assessed as having high viability and health by the botanists counting them. A few populations have been re-visited, and the populations appear to be stable. Habitat. Roadsides, or road cuts in sagebrush or subalpine grassland, openings in or adjacent to serviceberry-oak shrubland or aspen, 8,400–10,900 ft elevation. “Occurs among oaks, aspens, sagebrush, and in meadows; and thrives in disturbed areas along roads and trails” (Panjabi and Smith 2014). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Montane-Subalpine Grasslands; Sagebrush Shrubland; openings in Aspen Forest or Montane Shrubland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous plants, reproducing by seed, probably insect-pollinated. Effects on species and habitat by current management. “Area is disturbed, but that seems to be the preferred habitat of the species” (CNHP). Plants are only slightly palatable to herbivores, few cases of plants being clipped, and that under heavy grazing pressure. “Roads seem to be the primary concern for this species but most records do not report threats” (Panjabi and Smith 2014). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Subalpine shrublands and aspen stands with soil loss within natural range of variation. This species is ranked Presumed Stable (with low confidence) in the Gunnison Basin in the face of climate change due to preference for highly disturbed areas. Species is likely adapted to a broad moisture and temperature regime (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 26, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press.

187

Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Panjabi, Susan; and Gabrielle Smith. 2014. Recommended best management practices for Grand Mesa penstemon (Penstemon mensarum). Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 15 pp. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Penstemon retrorsus (adobe beardtongue) 185. Penstemon retrorsus Payson ex Pennell (PERE7) Common name(s): Adobe Hills beardtongue, adobe beardtongue. Rank (CNHP 2016): G3/S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all Colorado botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Montrose and Delta Counties. 27 records at CNHP, 86 dots on CNHP’s map. CNHP shows two sites on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. Nineteen populations have been counted, ranging from 50 to over a hundred thousand; average over 10,700.

188

EO No. Plants EO No. Plants EO No. Plants 441 >100,000 4942 ±3,000 10029 230 813 >100,000 5097 230 11024 200 891 3,500 5611 400 11037 250 1313 300 6987 350 14967 120 1556 ±300 8692 1,000 Total >216,000 1935 50 9112 800 3091 1,700 9227 250 3673 ±3,000

Habitat. Adobe hills from Mancos Shale, either barren or sparsely vegetated with Atriplex confertfolia, Atriplex corrugata, Artemisia nova, or Juniperus osteosperma, 5,800–7,200 ft

189

elevation. One of the GMUG sites is represented by a herbarium specimen within that range, on adobe slopes within piñon-juniper woodland, 7,200 ft. The other CNHP record site is a sight record without a voucher specimen, and is much higher, at 8,600 ft, and with very different associates: Pseudotsuga menziesii, Populus tremuloides, Amelanchier utahensis, and Symphoricarpos; this record is probably a misidentification, since BLM and CNHP botanists have worked for 40 years to define the limits to this species' distribution. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. A perennial herbaceous plant, reproducing primarily by seed, pollination by bees and flies. Demographics and population structure unknown. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Current management at the GMUG site emphasizes big game winter range. There are probably few effects on the Penstemon plants, as they occur on slopes with very little forage or browse, and are apparently resistant to trampling. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Undisturbed adobe Mancos Shale adobe hills and flats. There is very little of this habitat on the GMUG. This species has a single occurrence on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species lives in varied habitats and as a result it is not possible to accurately state how climate change would impact this species or its habitat. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 26, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Penstemon crandalli ssp. procumbens (Crandall’s beardtongue) 1. Species: Penstemon crandallii ssp. procumbens Crandall's beardtongue

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Crandall’s beardtongue Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4T2Q/SU T2 is a subtaxa that is imperiled globally, there is disagreement on the taxonomy of this taxa, thus the Q. The T2 ranking comes because this taxa is restricted to western Colorado – NatureServe says it’s restricted to Gunnison County. There

190

are collections from Eagle, Grand, and Routt counties, but the taxa is still a restricted range endemic. CNHP G4T2Q/SU Unranked in Colorado due to taxonomic dispute but the taxa is still fully tracked by CNHP Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, and Ackerfield recognize Penstemon crandallii ssp. procumbens as valid. The Flora of North America is silent on Penstemon, and Weber and Wittmann do not recognize Penstemon crandallii or any of its subtaxa.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from around a dozen collections on the GMUG, most recently in 2010. The area around Crested Butte and the Anthracite Mountains are a concentration of this Colorado endemic taxa. This species is known from around 40 total records for Colorado. None of the collections have threat, trend, or population data. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 >12 years

Year Last Observed 2010

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This taxa has been observed in rocky road cuts, rocky slopes, and talus slopes between 9,000 and 11,000 ft on the GMUG.

Forest Plan Ecosystem: Rocky Slopes, Screes, and Cliffs.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: This taxa has a large portion of its total distribution on the GMUG. There are no known threats to this species and its habitat is too vague to have a description in any of the climate change vulnerability assessment documents. The taxa has a T2 ranking from NatureServe, because it is endemic to just 4 counties in western Colorado.

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX.

191

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records for Alsinanthe stricta. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Minuartia stricta treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Phacelia splendens (patch phacelia) 1. Species: Phacelia splendens patch phacelia

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of patch phacelia Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G3/S3 Vulnerable at a global level due to regional endemism and few occurrences throughout its range CNHP S3 Vulnerable in Colorado Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Plants National Database, Ackerfield, NatureServe, CNHP, ITIS, and Weber and Wittmann recognize Phacelia splendens as a valid taxa.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: While this species is fully tracked by CNHP there are no Element Occurrences at CNHP so there are no abundance or trend data available. There are at least 20 records of the species of the patch phacelia on the

192

GMUG, the most recent collection being in 2012. There are more than 100 records of this species in Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences in the past 20 ≥20 years

Year Last Observed 2012

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: This species was collected on the GMUG in adobe soils from 4500-6000 ft in elevation.

Forest Plan Ecosystem.

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors: There are no known threats to this species on the GMUG. The habitat that this species occupies has not been analyzed for vulnerability to impacts from climate change

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia) Phacelia submutica J. T. Howell (PHSU6) Phacelia scopulina (A. Nelson) J. T. Howell var. submutica (J. T. Howell) Halse Phacelia lutea (Hooker and Arnott) J. T. Howell var. submutica (J. T. Howell) Cronquist Common name(s): De Beque phacelia. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2 as P. submutica, Fully Tracked; G4T2/S2 as P. scopulina var. submutica. A listed Threatened Species. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4T2/S2 Taxonomy. Known as the species Phacelia submutica to most botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012). The name Phacelia submutica has been standardized for Endangered Species Purposes

193

by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.5 In plants.usda.gov, the accepted name is Phacelia scopulina var. submutica, in spite of the fact that Kartesz shows it as Phacelia submutica in his latest version.1 Ackerfield (2015) calls this plant Phacelia scopulina var. submutica. Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Garfield and Mesa Counties. 25-30 sites on GMUG.

Abundance and population trend. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2010 showed 24 sites with almost 43,000 plants6; the Forest Service added 26 sites with another 5,000 plants.7 182 records at CNHP in 2016, clustered into 20 broad "occurrences" in 2017. Since they are annual plants, there may be significant differences in population numbers from year to year, depending on local weather; plants may not appear at all in some low-moisture years. Hence, population counts will also naturally vary, making trend difficult to estimate. Habitat. Sparsely-vegetated shale slopes and badlands, soil effectively thin because of hard clay layers, derived from two members of the Wasatch Formation (Atwell Gulch and Shire8). The presence of apparently suitable habitat without the plants of this species leads to the conjecture

5 Federal Register 76(144):45054-45075. July 27, 2011. 6 Federal Register 75(120):35721-35746. June 23, 2010. 7 Forest Supervisor’s letter to Regional Forester, 2670 of July 28, 2010. 8 Atwell and Shire Gulches have headwaters on the Grand Mesa National Forest, near the habitats of Phacelia submutica there.

194

that there must be other limiting factors. On the GMUG, almost all the sites are on steep, loose badland slopes with a cracked-clay surface; a few on gentler slopes. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Badland shale slopes and flats, usually nearly barren of vegetation, sometimes adjacent to Desert Alluvial Saltshrub or Piñon-Juniper Woodland. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small annual plants, therefore dependent on seed bank. Effects on species and habitat by current management. “The leading current disturbance to the plants and habitats of Phacelia submutica on the Grand Mesa National Forest is trampling by large herbivores, primarily mule deer and cattle. Livestock are not permitted on this portion of the National Forest, nonetheless there is some trampling damage at two populations from (unauthorized) trespass cattle from adjacent BLM public land. One of the sites on the Grand Mesa National Forest has been impacted by illegal off-road vehicles, mostly dirt bikes. Most of the habitats on the Grand Mesa National Forest are well-protected from access by cattle or off-road vehicles, by surrounding steep badlands and canyons. Phacelia submutica seems relatively secure on National Forest System Lands, based on what we know about its populations and habitats on this National Forest.”3 Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable shale slopes of the Wasatch Formation on the lower slopes of Horsethief Mountain. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change on BLM lands in Colorado based on Phacelia submutica’s preference for soils derived from on Atwell Gulch and Shire Members of Wasatch Formation, the presence of natural and anthropogenic barriers to movement, its predicted sensitivity to changes in precipitation, limited dispersal ability and the presence of energy development within its habitat (CNHP 2015). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 11, 2016, revised June 8, 2017.

Physaria alpine (Avery Peak twinpod) Physaria alpina Rollins 1981 (PHAL10) Common name(s): Avery Peak twinpod, alpine twinpod. Rank (CNHP 2016): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. The high-elevation Physaria species of the Western Slope have undergone a lot of changes in past decades. After the work of Mulligan (1966-1967) and Rollins (1981), we now understand a little better; see the key in Weber and Wittmann (2012, p. 135). It is significant

195

that two Physaria species in the Gunnison Basin were described recently. This is one of them, from the alpine. Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Gunnison, Lake, Park, and Pitkin Counties. There are 12-15 locations in Colorado, from herbarium specimens; nine records at CNHP. Eleven described locations on the GMUG. No.

EO Plants

2400 >1,000

3902 67

4320 >1,000

10009 1,350

14832* ±1,500

Total >4,900

*. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend on the GMUG. Across Colorado, five populations have been counted, and the populations appear fairly large, an average of about 1,100. On the GMUG, one population was estimated using scientific sampling methods at around 1,500 individuals. Trend data unknown. Habitat. Barren or sparsely vegetated alpine slopes, small-rock scree slopes, rocky alpine ridges and slopes, usually on limestone or other calcareous substrate, 11,400–13,200 ft elevation. Sometimes growing on old mine dumps or roads long abandoned. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Herbaceous perennial plants from a branched taproot, forming small mats. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Plants can tolerate at least a moderate level of substrate disturbance, edges of trails, but not in the trail itself (Ray 2001). Ray (2001) discusses each of the sites; her findings for the GMUG sites are summarized below (she did not investigate two of the known sites). • Avery Peak. The area is commonly hiked, but the plants are mostly resistant to moderate levels. Not accessible to off-road vehicles. Natural erosion combined with erosion from hiking trails just below the peak. • White Rock Mountain. Within wilderness. Fairly inaccessible, no trail to top. • Taylor Pass. Popular 4WD route, with illegal off-road use common by ATV-UTVs and motorcycles. Some spur 4WD roads in the area south of Taylor Peak on old mining roads. • Italian Mountain and Lambertson Peak (called North Italian Mountain in earlier literature). There are several popular 4WD roads in the area, and off-road use is common, especially on American Flag Mountain to the southeast, and Crystal Peak to the south. Motorcyclists have cut an illegal trail to the top of Crystal Peak (CNHP).

196

• Cumberland Pass. An extensively mined area in the past, now there are several 4WD roads and hiking trails in the area, and off-road use by ATV-UTVs and motorcycles is fairly common; the terrain is gentle and most sites are accessible by off-road vehicles. • Fossil Ridge. Most of this is now within the Fossil Ridge Management Area, managed as wilderness. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable soil conditions (stable within natural levels of soil disturbance) on alpine slopes, especially on limestone and other calcareous substrates. The plants are tolerant of trampling and a moderate level of soil disturbance, as would occur on a naturally sloughing shale slope, or with light human foot travel. Soil disturbance from vehicles (motorized or mechanized) is apparently tolerated at very light levels and on level to nearly-level terrain. Use becomes detrimental when trails begin to form, which would be under moderate foot travel or any vehicle use (motorized or mechanized) on slopes. Most of the reported populations on the GMUG are large. Populations at sites such as Cumberland Pass, Taylor Pass, and American Flag Mountain are declining from (largely unauthorized) off-road vehicle use, so their viability is at risk – and off-road vehicle use is increasing dramatically. The population on the GMUG constitutes a significant portion of this species’ total distribution and maintaining viability on the GMUG is important for the species as a whole. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin based on restriction to cold environments and dependence on ice and snow (Neely et al. 2011).

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 26, 2016, revised May 25, 2017.

Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Mulligan, G.A., 1966. Two new species of Physaria (Cruciferae) in Colorado. Canadian Journal of Botany, 44(12), pp.1661-1665. Mulligan, G.A., 1967. Diploid and autotetraploid Physaria vitulifera (Cruciferae). Canadian Journal of Botany, 45(2), pp.183-188. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Ray, Joan. 2001. Status review: Avery Peak twinpod (Physaria alpina Rollins). Boulder, CO: Center for Native Ecosystems. 20 pp. Rollins, Reed C. 1981. Studies in the genus Physaria (Cruciferae). Brittonia 33(3): 332-341. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

197

Physaria parviflora (Piceance bladderpod) Lesquerella parviflora Rollins Physaria parviflora (Rollins) O'Kane and Al-Shehbaz (no code) Common name(s): Piceance bladderpod. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. This has been accepted as a species by all botanists since it was described; recently it was transferred to the genus Physaria (Al-Shehbaz and O’Kane 2002). Shown as Lesquerella parviflora by NatureServe, Physaria parviflora by CNHP, Weber and Wittmann (2012), and Ackerfield (2015).. Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Rio Blanco, Garfield, and Mesa Counties. 23 records from Colorado at CNHP. One occurrence on the GMUG, on Battlement Mesa. Site is shared with Argillochloa dasyclada and Thalictrum heliophilum, and the populations of all three species extend across the Forest boundary to the White River National Forest. Abundance and population trend. Twenty of the populations have been counted; some of the populations are very large. A few re-counts shows some fluctuation from year to year (possibly differences among observers). EO No. Plants EO No. Plants

623 13,000 8909 8,350

1474 200 10191 9,300

1951 850 10668 100

4039 5,630 10850 11,650

4876 200 10851 8,750

4880* ±300 11235 1,000

5379 21,000 11448 750

6029 1,000 13471 >500

6133 10 14966 100

7739 100 15494 ±100

* GMUG site Total >82,800

Habitat. Steep loose shale slopes, barren slopes, benches on white shale cliffs, barrens within piñon- juniper or oak-serviceberry, light-colored shales of the Green River Formation. On the GMUG, steep shale slopes and road banks, soil derived from the Green River Formation, within the mountain shrub (Gambel oak-Utah serviceberry) and piñon-juniper cover types, 8,500-8,700 ft elevation. The shale slopes forming this species' habitat are loose, continually moving and sloughing off material. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Nearly-barren slopes within Mountane Shrubland, Piñon-Juniper Woodland.

198

Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Relatively long-lived herbaceous perennial plants. Presumably reproduction is largely by seed. Physaria parviflora helps stabilize steep clay-shale slopes that are steep enough to be continually sloughing soil downslope. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG site shows no signs of recent grazing or other management. Mule deer and elk use these slopes for browse, forage, and cover, and they contribute to soil movement; from brief observations, there is no indication of effects on the species or its habitat by these animals. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. “The trends are unknown for this species but the occurrences seem to be viable” (NatureServe). Requirements are barrens or steep slopes, derived from the Green River shale, where there is some level of natural disturbance going on, such as soil movement downslope by gravity. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with very high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change BLM lands in Colorado based on natural barriers to movement, potential for increased energy development in occupied habitat, likelihood of short seed dispersal distances, lack of variation in annual precipitation in occupied habitat over last 50 years, potential decrease in soil moisture availability, restriction to Green River Formation shales (CNHP 2015). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 7, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A.; and Steve L. O’Kane Jr. 2002. Lesquerella is united with Physaria (Brassicaceae). Novon 12(3):319-329. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Picradenia helenioides (Intermountain rubberweed) Picradenia helenioides Rydb. (PIHE7) Hymenoxys helenioides (Ryberg) Cockerell Common name(s): Intermountain rubberweed. Rank (NatureServe): G3G4Q, “Conservation status not applicable – Hybrid without conservation value” in Colorado (NatureServe 2017). Not tracked by CNHP (2017).

199

While this species meets the criteria for being considered as an SCC (G3), its conservation status as a hybrid without conservation value means that there can be no substantial concern for the continued persistence on the GMUG and as such cannot be designated as an SCC and no other information is needed in this overview.

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by some (Bierner 2006 in Flora of North America), but demonstrated to be an unstable hybrid between Picradenia richardsonii and Dugaldia hoopesii (Anderson and others 1996, Bierner and Jansen 1998). “J. L. Anderson et al. (1996) and M. W. Bierner and R. K. Jansen (1998) provided evidence that Hymenoxys helenioides is a hybrid between H. hoopesii and H. richardsonii var. floribunda. Bierner (2001) recognized H. helenioides as a species because he was unable to determine whether all of the plants were F1 hybrids or at least some of them had given rise to breeding populations” (Bierner 2006). Weber and Wittmann (2012) say, “FNA recognizes this as a valid species even though P. helenioides is known to be a sterile hybrid involving Dugaldia hoopesii and Picradenia richardsonii.” Ackerfield (2015) accepts it as Hymenoxys helenioides without comment. NatureServe consider it a species, Hymenoxys helenioides, strangely without comment. I have visited the site for this on the GMUG several times without finding it, though it should be obvious NatureServe (2017) considers it “without conservation value” in Colorado. Therefore, this species does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a Species of Conservation Concern. Distribution. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 23, 2016, revised June 10, 2017.

Pleurozium schreberi (feathermoss) Pleurozium schreberi (Willdenow) Mitten (PLSC70) Calliergon schreberi (Willdenow) Mitten Common name(s): Schreber's big red stem moss, feathermoss. Rank (CNHP 2016): G5/S1S3, Fully Tracked. Not Ranked in Wyoming and Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species, Pleurozium schreberi (Weber and Wittmann 2007). Distribution. Most of Canada and northern United States, including Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; Mexico, Central and South America, Eurasia, Africa. In Colorado in Boulder, Delta, Grand, Larimer, and San Juan Counties. One record at CNHP. Two sites on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. Unknown for Colorado populations; at the two GMUG sites, canopy cover was measured, as shown in the table below. This is an unusual and rare species with low population numbers, apparently. GMUG PLSC70 Site PLSC70 Site Cover Acres m² GM1 0.1% 0.07 0.3 GM2 0.1% 1.23 5.0 Total 5.3

200

Habitat. On the GMUG, in fens and on the margins of shaded wetlands, 9,500–10,100 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Large (for a moss) perennial moss, mostly of shaded forest floors. Effects on species and habitat by current management. At one GMUG site, construction of an earthen dam and ditch in this site leaves 75% of it flooded, the other 25% drying out. This has led to loss of mosses across entire site. There is also intense big game (deer and elk) and cattle use in drier areas. This area is managed to emphasize livestock forage (USDA Forest Service 1991). At the other GMUG site, habitat is a small fen closely surrounded by spruce-fir forest, relatively undisturbed, getting light human trail use. The surrounding spruce-fir forest is affected by insects and diseases, and several trees are down each year; unknown what effect that has on the populations of this moss. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Wetlands and fens in undisturbed condition, including a buffer around their margins (usually 100 m). This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2016. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado

201

Polypodium hesperium (western polypody) Polypodium hesperium Maxon (POHE3) Polypodium vulgare L. var. hesperium (Maxon) A. Nelson and J. F. MacBride Common name(s): western polypody. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S2 in Utah, Not Ranked in Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Haufler and others 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Polypodium hesperium “belongs to a circumboreal polyploid complex which is as yet only partly understood. The oldest name in the group is P. vulgare L., based on European plants, and this name has often been used to cover all members of the complex” (Burkhart 2002). Before 1993, P. hesperium included what is now segregated as P. saximontanum Windham (Haufler and others 1993-1995). Distribution. British Columbia and Alberta, south to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Chihuahua and Baja California. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Ouray, La Plata, and San Juan Counties. Seven records from Colorado at CNHP. Five to eight sites on the GMUG, all near Ouray. As far as known, no one has searched other areas on the Forest for this species, so there may be more sites. Abundance and population trend. Six sites in Colorado have been counted or estimated; populations are small to moderately large. No trend data. EO No. Plants 1279* ±5 1454* ±5 4935 3 6140* “abundant” 7150* ±5 9046 ±10 *. GMUG site

202

Habitat. In Colorado, shaded cliffs, shaded talus slopes, bases of rock outcrops, dense forests, rock of various lithology (sometimes limestone), 8,000–8,500 ft elevation. The GMUG sites are on rock outcrops, crevices, and cliffs. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial fern, reproducing by spores. A tetraploid species (Haufler and others 1995, Sigel and others 2014). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Several sites are inaccessible to hikers or vehicles. Three of the sites are inaccessible because of steepness and rocky, difficult terrain. One site is in an area that was mined long ago, partially accessible along a popular trail. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Cliffs and rock outcrops. The habitat that this species occupies has not been analyzed for vulnerability to impacts from climate change

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Literature cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Burkhart, Beth. 2002. Species evaluations. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5334258.pdf Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Haufler, Christopher H.; Douglas E. Soltis; and Pamela S. Soltis. 1995. Phylogeny of the Polypodium vulgare complex. Systematic Botany 20(2):110-119. Haufler, Christopher H.; Robbin C. Moran; and Michael D. Windham. 1993. Cystopteris Bernhardi. Pp. 263-270 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Sigel, Erin M.; Michael D. Windham; and Kathleen M. Pryer. 2014. Evidence for reciprocal origins in Polypodium hesperium (Polypodiaceae): A fern model system for investigating how multiple origins shape allopolyploid genomes. American Journal of Botany 101(9):1476- 1485. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Polypodium saximontanum (Rocky Mountain polypody) Polypodium saximontanum Windham 1993 (POSA19) Common name(s): Rocky Mountain polypody. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3?/S3, Fully Tracked.

203

Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3?/S3 Taxonomy. Polypodium saximontanum is a relatively recently published species. Before 1993, these plants were considered part of Polypodium hesperium Maxon (Haufler and others 1993-1995, Sigel and others 2014). Now considered a species by most botanists (Haufler and others 1993, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). It is not easy to distinguish the two species, and several intermediate specimens between them have been recognized. Distribution. Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, and New Mexico. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Jefferson, La Plata, Larimer, Ouray, Pitkin, Pueblo, Routt, and Saguache Counties. 20-25 sites in Colorado. Seven occurrences in Colorado in CNHP’s data base. Eight or nine sites on the GMUG. ID No. Plants 13140 >1,000 14769 2 14770 11 14771 6 14772 ±10 14773 4 15161 100 359A* 5 Total >1,100 *. GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. Seven Colorado populations have been counted; mostly small, but one over 1,000. Trend unknown. Habitat. In Colorado, cracks and crevices in cliffs and rock outcrops, mostly granitic geology, shaded sites within montane or subalpine forests, 7,000–9,500 ft elevation. On the GMUG, moist cracks and crevices in granite cliffs, bases of granite rock outcrops, crevices in large talus rocks, 8,000- 8,600 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs; surrounding vegetation in Warm-Dry Mixed Conifer Forest or Ponderosa Pine Forest. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial fern, reproducing by spores. A tetraploid species. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Three of the GMUG sites have a management emphasis of roaded natural recreation; these are on cliffs that get used by rock climbers fairly often. One GMUG site is managed for wildlife indicator species, and is below a highway but fenced from vehicle access, not often visited. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. To contribute to viable population, stable cliff faces. The habitat that this species occupies has not been analyzed for vulnerability to impacts from climate change Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Literature Cited

204

Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Haufler, Christopher H.; Douglas E. Soltis; and Pamela S. Soltis. 1995. Phylogeny of the Polypodium vulgare complex. Systematic Botany 20(2):110-119. Haufler, Christopher H.; Robbin C. Moran; and Michael D. Windham. 1993. Cystopteris Bernhardi. Pp. 263-270 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 475 pp. Sigel, Erin M.; Michael D. Windham; and Kathleen M. Pryer. 2014. Evidence for reciprocal origins in Polypodium hesperium (Polypodiaceae): A fern model system for investigating how multiple origins shape allopolyploid genomes. American Journal of Botany 101(9):1476- 1485. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Pyrola picta (whiteveined wintergreen) 1. Species: Pyrola picta whiteveined wintergreen

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of whiteveined wintergreen Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4G5/S3S4

CNHP G4G5/S3S4 Between vulnerable and apparently secure by CNHP – Watch listed only Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America and Weber and Wittmann recognize Pyrola picta.

205

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from 1 collection on the GMUG NF in 2010 between Cow Creek and Green Mountain trailheads. This collection does not note any threats, trend, or population data. There are around a total of 40 collections in Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 1

Year Last Observed 2010

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Whiteveined wintergreen grows in mixed conifer forest with scattered aspen at 8300 ft. on the GMUG. Forest Plan Ecosystem: Cool-moist mixed conifer forest.

Ranunculus gelidus (tundra buttercup) Ranunculus karelinii Cherepanov 1981 Ranunculus gelidus Karelin & Kirilov 1842 Ranunculus grayi Britton, Ranunculus verecundus B. L. Robinson Common name(s): ice cold buttercup, arctic buttercup, tundra buttercup. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5 / S1S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4G5/SNR

206

Taxonomy. Accepted as a species, Ranunculus gelidus by most botanists, (Whittemore 1997, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Whittemore (1997) includes no varieties or subspecies. This species was originally named Ranunculus gelidus in 1842, saying “habitat on the summits of the Alatau Mountains, near the headwaters of the Lepsy River [southeastern Kazakhstan], in gravelly late snow-melt.”9 Cherepanov proposed a new name, supposing that R. gelidus had previously been published, but he was in error. IPNI10 calls Ranunculus karelinii “nom. illeg. nom. superfl.” i.e., a name illegitimate and superfluous. The NRCS Plants National Database uses Ranunculus karelinii; and NatureServe recognizes both R. karelinii and Ranunculus grayi. ITIS11 does not recognize R. karelinii, but places North American populations into R. grayi. The Flora of North America places all of these taxa into R. gelidus, Whittemore (2009) emphasizes that R. karelinii has never been a valid taxon and places North American Material into R. grayi with old world taxa into R. gelidus. Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado; central Asia. In Colorado, in Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Larimer, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, and Summit Counties. 20-25 herbarium records for the species in Colorado. CNHP (2017) shows 16 records for this species Spackman Panjabi and Anderson (2006) list fifteen sites for Ranunculus gelidus in Colorado, including four sites on the GMUG. No. EO Plants 1334 40 3831 50 5934 3 7075 10 10526 60 11216 10 13726 20 14458 40 14459 40 15752 100 Total 373

Abundance and population trend. Ten sites have been counted by CNHP; numbers range from three to 100, averaging about 35; small populations. These are difficult populations to count, because of the difficulty of human access and the extreme environment. Spackman Panjabi and Anderson (2006) estimate 80 plants in the four GMUG sites.

9 “Hab. in summis alpibus Alatau ad fontes fluvii Lepsa, in glareosis ad scaturigines nivibus formatas deliquescentibus” 10 International Plant Names Index, http://www.ipni.org/. 11 Integrated Taxonomic Information System, https://www.itis.gov/.

207

Habitat. Highest alpine rocks, talus slopes, ledges, early snowmelt areas, 12,700–14,300 ft elevation. General geology, sometimes on limestone. On the GMUG, windy high-alpine steep ridges and rocky tops, very rocky and sparsely vegetated, sometimes on limestone, 13,000-14,000 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Small perennial herbaceous plant with a spreading habit and fibrous roots (Spackman Panjabi and Anderson 2006). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Two of the GMUG sites are in wilderness areas. One GMUG site is in a management area emphasizing semi-primitive non-motorized recreation. The fourth GMUG site is indefinitely located, so management is unknown. All of these sites are highly inaccessible because of the surrounding steep rocky ridges. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Conserving or recovering the species would require stable, undisturbed high-alpine rocks, retaining the cold to very cold climate. This species is known from only 4 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and the San Juan Mountains based on restriction to cold environments and dependence on ice and snow. Documented occurrences are located on the edge of melting snowbanks (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014).

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 6, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Spackman Panjabi, Susan; and David G. Anderson. 2006. Ranunculus karelinii Czern. (ice cold buttercup)” A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 43 pp. Published online. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

208

Whittemore, Alan T. 1997. Ranunculus Linnaeus. In Flora of North America north of Mexico, volume 3. Whittemore, A.T., 2009. WHAT IS RANUNCULUS GELIDUS (RANUNCULACEAE)?. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, pp.245-250.

Salix calcicola (lime-loving willow) Salix calcicola Fernald & Wiegand var. glandulosior B. Boivin (SACAG5) Common name(s): woolly willow, lanate willow, lime-loving willow. Rank (CNHP 2017): G4G5T4/S1, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4G5T1T2/SNR Taxonomy. This species has been known from Colorado for some time. Argus (2010), in Flora of North America, decided that the Colorado and Alberta plants belong to S. candida var. glandulosior (Weber and Wittmann 2012); S. candida var. candida does not occur here. Ackerfield (2015) as Salix calcicola. Distribution. Salix candida var. glandulosior occurs in Colorado and Alberta. Salix candida var. candida occurs in the Canadian eastern Arctic, in Manitoba, Newfoundland, Labrador, Quebec, and Nunavut. In Colorado, in Gunnison and Park Counties. Two or three sites in Colorado, one site on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. No counts at either of the Colorado sites. The Park County location has been visited over twenty years by many people, and seems stable.

Habitat. Stabilized talus from limestone or other carbonate rock, 12,000–12,300 ft elevation. The Gunnison County site is a moderate S-facing slope on soils derived from limestone, at 12,300 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Low willow shrubs, less than a 50 centimeters tall and wide. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG location is within the Fossil Ridge Management Area, managed as wilderness. There are probably few effects, since the site

209

is well away from trails, with no livestock grazing in the area. Site is known only from a herbarium specimen. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable alpine ecosystems, especially where substrate is limestone. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Argus, George W. 2010. Salix Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Saxifraga cespitosa (tundra saxifrage) Saxifraga cespitosa L. ssp. monticola (Small) Porsild Muscaria monticola Small (MUMO3) (Weber and Wittmann 2012) Common name(s): tufted alpine saxifrage, tundra saxifrage. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5T5/S2, Fully Tracked. S1 in New Mexico, S2 in Wyoming, S4 in Montana, Not Ranked in Utah. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/SNR Taxonomy. Flora of North America (Brouillet and Elvander 2009) recognize Saxifraga cespitosa L. without any subspecies, and they lump a number of taxa into it, including Muscaria delicatula,

210

M. micropetala, and M. monticola, all accepted as species by Weber and Wittmann (2012). “The North American representatives of Saxifraga cespitosa are very variable. It seems futile at this time to recognize any of the infrapecific taxa that have been described, although five are frequently distinguished as either subspecies or varieties. Expressions of all of the purported distinguishing characters overlap or have little apparent geographic or ecologic correlation” (Brouillet and Elvander 2009). Ackerfield (2015) describes Saxifraga cespitosa without subspecies, and Muscaria delicatula as a synonym; she doesn't mention monticola or micropetala. NatureServe has just Saxifraga cespitosa without any subspecies or synonyms mentioned. PLANTS12 has seven subspecies: Saxifraga caespitosa ssp. caespitosa, ssp. delicatula, ssp. micropetala, ssp. monticola, ssp. sileneflora, ssp. subgemmifera, and ssp. uniflora. Only delicatula, micropetala, and monticola occur in Colorado. Saxifraga caespitosa L. ssp. uniflora (R. Br.) A.E. Porsild; Muscaria micropetala is synonymized under ssp. monticola. The Rocky Mountain Herbarium (RM) has the Colorado specimens of Saxifraga cespitosa in two varieties: S. cespitosa var. delicatula (Small) Engler and Irmscher and var. minima Blankenship (var. minima is a synonym under ssp. monticola in PLANTS). I have seen all three of these in the field in Colorado; they seem quite distinct here at least (Weber and others 1981). The following discussion uses the sources: COLO for Muscaria monticola, RM for Saxifraga cespitosa var. minima, SEINet13 for Muscaria monticola and Saxifraga cespitosa ssp. monticola. Distribution. Muscaria monticola (Saxifraga cespitosa ssp. monticola) is distributed in Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. In Colorado in Clear Creek, Costilla, Custer, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Lake, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, and Summit Counties. Seven records from Colorado at CNHP; only one has been counted, at 20 individuals. Eleven or twelve sites on the GMUG. Abundance and population trend. Only one Colorado population has been counted, at 20 individuals (not on GMUG). No trend data. Habitat. Rocky alpine peaks and ridges, snowmelt areas, 12,100–14,100 ft elevation. On the GMUG, gravelly alpine ridges, fellfields, slopes, and snowmelt areas, 12,200-13,200 ft. Forest Flan Ecosystems. Alpine Uplands. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One GMUG site is managed for emphasis on semi-primitive motorized recreation; one is in semi-primitive non- motorized recreation; one is in pristine wilderness setting; one is in primitive wilderness; and three are in semi-primitive wilderness.

12 plants.usda.gov, accessed July 6, 2016. 13 http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/collections/

211

All of these sites are away from roads and trails except the first site; this site may be affected by illegal off-road/off-trail vehicles. Several of these sites are on the slopes of relatively high peaks, but where they are, they are far away from trails and destinations. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Rocky alpine peaks and ridges in undisturbed condition. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible. Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 25, 2016, revised June 9, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Brouillet, Luc; and Patrick E. Elvander. 2009. Saxifraga Linnaeus. In Flora of North America Volume 9. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Weber, William A.; Barry C. Johnston; and Ronald Wittmann. 1981. Additions to the flora of Colorado – VII. Brittonia 33(3): 325-331.

Sclerocactus glaucus (Colorado hookless cactus) Sclerocactus glaucus (J. A. Purpus ex K. Schumann) L. D. Benson (SCGL3) Echinocactus glaucus K. Schumann 1898 Sclerocactus franklinii Evans 1939 Common name(s): Colorado hookless cactus Rank (CNHP 2017): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked; listed as a Threatened Species in 1979

212

Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2G3/S2S3 Taxonomy. First described as Echinocactus glaucus by Schumann in 1898, based on a specimen collected by C. A. Purpus in June 1892, on the adobes of Dry Creek, Delta County. Before the 21st century this was considered to include populations in central and north-central Utah. After the researches of many botanists, notably Fritz Hochstätter (1989-1997), Ken Heil, and Mark Porter, Sclerocactus glaucus was found to occur only in Colorado, the Utah populations being S. wetlandicus Hochstätter and S. brevispinus K. D. Heil and J. M. Porter. This was accepted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009 (Federal Register 74(177):47112-47116). Another species, Sclerocactus franklinii, was described from nearly the same location, 1 to 2 miles east of Delta; this is considered a synonym of S. glaucus, although some monographs have not mentioned it (Heil and Porter, for example). For some time, botanists have documented possible hybridization of Sclerocactus glaucus with a more common species, S. parviflorus. It is true that the northern segment of the population of S. glaucus does seem morphologically more similar to S. parviflorus than the southern segments. Distribution. Endemic to Colorado. Known from several hundred locations in Garfield, Mesa, Delta, and Montrose Counties. On the GMUG, known from three or four populations on the lower slopes of Battlement Mesa, Grand Mesa National Forest. Abundance and population trend. Field investigations in recent years have turned up several large populations, and the total number of plants known probably is in the hundreds of thousands. Population numbers seem to be relatively stable, with a few plants being lost from time to time from road building, development, and collection.

Zones of Sclerocactus glaucus (Johnston 2013). Distribution of Sclerocactus glaucus near the GMUG.

213

Habitat. Rocky openings in sagebrush and saltbush communities. The GMUG occurrences are all on colluvial benches near wash bottoms, within Sagebrush or Semi-Desert Shrubland. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Sagebrush Shrubland, Desert Alluvial Saltshrub. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. A recent thesis using genetic modeling demonstrated that there are significant genetic differences between the north and south portions of this distribution, shown as green and blue in the map (Schwabe 2012, Schwabe and others 2014). The portion of the distribution east of Delta was not analyzed in Schwabe’s thesis, shown as pink in Figure 1; it was from this area that Sclerocactus franklinii was described. Effects on species and habitat by current management. It is apparent that the GMUG populations are remnants of larger populations, since currently Sclerocactus glaucus only occurs where cattle could not reach because of landscape barriers. The area where these populations occur has not been grazed by livestock for at least 40 years. Currently, the biggest impact on these plants and their habitats is the large population of mule deer in the area. These deer herds have been driven upward to these slopes of Horsethief Mountain by development in their former winter ranges at lower elevations to the west. Most Sclerocactus glaucus plants on the Forest are partially underneath or within a shrub or next to a cobble or boulder, protecting them from the extensive, continual soil churning from the deer hooves. The GMUG plants of Sclerocactus glaucus are sparsely distributed, corresponding closely to the small patches of remaining habitat. The larger, healthier populations of Sclerocactus glaucus on the BLM land below the Forest are subject to overcollection by humans, including gathering cactus for gardens/illegal commercial sale. A number of the larger plants close to roads have disappeared for this reason. In one case, researchers working with the cactus actually flagged the sagebrush plants under which the Sclerocactus plants occurred; returning a few days later, the researchers found the largest plants had been taken. This threat is not expected to be significant on the National Forest, as all Sclerocactus glaucus sites are inaccessible (they are remnants from the more intense cattle grazing of past decades). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Sagebrush and saltbush stands on colluvial benches undisturbed by mule deer and other large herbivores.. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with unspecified confidence) to negative impacts from climate change on BLM lands in Colorado based on natural and anthropogenic barriers to movement, likelihood of short seed dispersal distances, lack of variation in annual precipitation in occupied habitat over last 50 years, potential increase in climate influenced disturbances within its habitat, potential for wind and solar energy development within its range, and pollinator specificity (CNHP 2015). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 6, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

214

Hochstätter, Fritz. 1989. An den Standorten von Pedio– und Sclerocactus: Über 100.000 km in der Wildnis Nordamerikas. Mannheim, Germany: Author. 150 pp. Hochstätter, Fritz. 1995. The genus Sclerocactus (Cactaceae), Part 1. English translation by Chris Holland. British Cactus and Succulent Journal 13(2): 73-79. Hochstätter, Fritz. 1996. The genus Sclerocactus (Cactaceae). English translation by Chris Holland. Part 2, British Cactus and Succulent Journal 14(2): 76-84. Part 3, British Cactus and Succulent Journal 14(4): 183-188. Hochstätter, Fritz. 1997. The genus Sclerocactus (Cactaceae), Part 4. English translation by Chris Holland. British Cactus and Succulent Journal 15(2): 74-81. Schwabe, Anna L. 2012. Analysis of microsatellites from Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus parviflorus to assess hybridization levels and genetic diversity. M. S. Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, Center of Natural and Health Sciences, Greeley, Colorado. 107 pp. Schwabe, Anna L.; Jennifer Ramp Neale; and Mitchell E. McGlaughlin. 2014. Examining the genetic integrity of a rare endemic Colorado cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) in the face of hybridization threats from a close and widespread congener (Sclerocactus parviflorus). Conservation Genetics. Published online October 26, 2014. DOI 10.1007/s10592-014-0671- 3.

Silene kingii (King’s campion) 1. Species: King’s campion (Silene kingii)

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of King’s campion. Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G2G4Q/NA Vulnerable, not much information available at the global scale

CNHP G2G4Q/S1 Critically imperiled in Colorado – Fully Tracked Colorado None State List Status

USDA Forest None Service

USDI FWSb Unlisted a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy Genus/species Silene kingii is accepted as valid by ITIS 2015 and Plants National Database, Gastrolychnis kingii is a taxonomic synonym that is not accepted by ITIS, but which is still in use by CNHP and Weber and Wittmann. Complicating things further, Ackerfield (2015) indicates that the Colorado specimens of S. kingii she examined are actually S. hitchguirei, but indicates that S. kingii is expected to be present in Colorado. Some taxonomists refer to it as Lychnis apetala var. kingii or

215

Gastrolychnis apetala var. kingii. The Flora of North America notes that Silene kingii may hybridize with Silene uralensis subsp. uralensis.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: There is one known collection for Silene kingii on GMUG in the West Elk Mountains on the Ruby Range. The known voucher was collected in 1985 above Green Lake. There are 16 collections of this taxa in Colorado. The collection on the GMUG does not have trend, population, or thereat information.

There is uncertainty as to the species overall range. It occurs in western Colorado, eastern Utah, and parts of Wyoming. It may occur in Montana and possibly even as far north as Alberta but the taxonomy of those northern populations are uncertain. It also appears that some herbarium specimens attributed to this species may have been misidentified, adding further confusion as to the species’ actual range.

There is no information on trend for this species on the GMUG or anywhere else.

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency Within the Planning Area Known Occurrences in the past 20 1 years

Year Last Observed 1986

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]:

This species is poorly understood compared to many more common species. There remains some disagreement on taxonomy, its full range is not yet known (in part due to those taxonomic disagreements. Silene kingii is primarily a subalpine to alpine species with a few occurrences in the spruce-fir forests. It is most commonly found in the Carex rupestris (curly sedge) cushion plant communities in areas with coarse soils. It generally grows mixed in with other plants rather than growing isolated on otherwise bare soil, even if that soil seems suitable. The plant may grow preferentially on limestone outcrops or limestone derived soils, but that too is unclear.

The occurrence on the GMUG is from a dry alpine meadow on a ridgetop at 12,100 ft.

Forest Plan Ecosystems: Alpine Uplands

7. Overview of ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability [12.53 7, 9?, 10, 11, 12] including Threats and Risk Factors:

This species has a single occurrence on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. The alpine habitat of this species is considered to be Highly Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains (Neely et al 2011). The alpine ecosystem is likely to be highly susceptible to rising temperatures and a shorter duration of snow cover. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season in the alpine may allow shrubs and trees to encroach. For many species, a range shift in response to warmer temperatures is expected, but with no higher areas available for alpine species, a range shift may not be possible.

216

8. Key literature:

Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Element Occurrence Records for Silene kingii. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2015.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 2, 2015.

Intermountain Region Herbarium Network. 2015. Consortium of Intermountain Herbaria, in collaboration with the Southwestern Environmental Information Network (SEINet). Online database: http://intermountainbiota.org/portal/collections/index.php?catid=1 Accessed August 20, 2015

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2006. Silene kingie (S.Wats.) Bocquet (King’s campion) A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. 52 pages.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Plants Database. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/ Accessed Sept 2, 2015

NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 2, 2015

Sphagnum angustifolium (sphagnum) Sphagnum angustifolium (C. E. O. Jensen ex Russow) C. E. O. Jensen (SPAN11) Common name(s): sphagnum, narrowleaf peatmoss. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, across Canada; south to Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, the Dakotas, and eastward. In Colorado, in Boulder, Grand, Lake, Ouray, Park, Rio Grande, San Juan, and Summit Counties. No records at CNHP. Six records from Colorado at CNHP. Two sites near the GMUG, each partially on NFS lands in Ouray County. The species must be identified on technical characteristics, and verified by an expert.

217

EO Cover Acres SPAN11 Cvr. County 9783 60% 1.313 0.788 San Juan 60% 0.029 0.017 20% 4.372 0.874 50% 0.112 0.056 14737 10% 5.425 0.543 San Juan 40% 2.447 0.979 40% 1.120 0.448 10% 1.676 0.168 40% 1.060 0.424

50% 0.972 0.486 14738 20% 1.614 0.323 San Juan * 1% 0.407 0.004 Ouray 70% 2.614 1.830 * 70% 1.395 0.977 Average 38.6% Total 7.916

*. GMUG sites, partially.

Abundance and population trend. Percent cover is shown in the table above, for fourteen sites in San Juan and Ouray Counties (Chimner and others 2008-2010); all of these sites are iron fens. The San Juan County sites have been grouped into "occurrences" by CNHP, although sites within an "occurrence" may be as much as 2½ miles apart. The two Ouray County sites are each partially on the Uncompahgre National Forest, and partially on private (patented) land – approximately 10% NFS in all three cases. These data show that Sphagnum angustifolium can be abundant in iron fens, but iron fens are rare. No trend data available. At one of these sites, habitat is shared with Sphagnum girgensohnii. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens. Habitat. In Colorado, iron fens, 10,200–11,400 ft elevation. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Rare perennial sphagnum moss, reproducing by spores. Spores presumably could disperse widely. Effects on species and habitat by current management. NFS land at the two GMUG locations are only small slivers of two fens that are mostly on private (patented) land within the Forest boundary. The small slivers of NFS land is assigned to semi-primitive motorized recreation. One of the sites is a few meters below a paved highway, and may be affected by highway maintenance and winter chemical applications for snow. At the other site, the NFS slivers are away from the road and any public access. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Constant supply of iron- rich water, undisturbed conditions in iron fens, and in their contributing watersheds. This species is known from only 2 locations on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and the San Juan Mountains because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation as well as its restriction to cold, high elevation fens fed by groundwater, short dispersal distance, and reliance on snow as insulation (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 8, 2016, revised June 5, 2017.

218

Literature Cited Chimner, R. A.; D. J. Cooper; K. Nydick; and J. Lemly. 2008. Final report: Regional assessment of fen distribution, condition, and restoration needs, San Juan Mountains. 212 pp. Silverton, CO: Mountain Studies Institute. http://www.mountainstudies.org/Research/pdf/Fen05_EPAFinalReport_ALL.pdf. Chimner, Rod A.; Joanna M. Lemly; and David J. Cooper. 2010. Mountain fen distribution, types and restoration priorities, San Juan Mountains, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 30(4): 763-771. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Sphagnum gigensohnii (Girgensohn’s sphagnum) Sphagnum girgensohnii Russow (SPGI70) Common name(s): Girgensohn's sphagnum, Girgensohn's peatmoss. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Montana (NatureServe doesn’t know about distribution in Wyoming, Washington, or Idaho) Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted by most botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012). Distribution. Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, across southern Canada; south to Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New England; Europe. In Colorado in Clear Creek, Ouray, and San Juan Counties. Five records from Colorado at CNHP, none of them with counts or abundance estimates. Two sites within the GMUG boundary, one of which is all on private land; the other is partially (±10%) on NFS. Abundance and population trend. Sphagnum girgensohnii was 5% cover in one community within a sampled fen (not known if that portion is on NFS); the whole fen is 0.8 acre (Chimner and others 2008-2010).

219

Habitat. In Colorado, iron fens, 9,800–11,900 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystem. Fen.

Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial sphagnum moss. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The GMUG site partially on NFS is about 50 m below U. S. Highway 550, and may be affected by highway maintenance and winter chemical applications for snow. Access to vehicles unknown. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable water tables and undisturbed conditions in fens, especially iron fens. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 4, 2016, revised June 5, 2017. Literature Cited Chimner, R. A.; D. J. Cooper; K. Nydick; and J. Lemly. 2008. Final report: Regional assessment of fen distribution, condition, and restoration needs, San Juan Mountains. 212 pp. Silverton, CO: Mountain Studies Institute. http://www.mountainstudies.org/Research/pdf/Fen05_EPAFinalReport_ALL.pdf. Chimner, Rod A.; Joanna M. Lemly; and David J. Cooper. 2010. Mountain fen distribution, types and restoration priorities, San Juan Mountains, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 30(4): 763-771. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado

220

Stellaria irrigua (Colorado starwort) 1. Species: Stellaria irrigua Colorado starwort

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. 3. Table 1. Current status of Colorado starwort Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G4?

CNHP S3 Ranked as Vulnerable by CNHP - Watch listed only Colorado State List Status

USDA Forest Service

USDI FWSb a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. Taxonomy The Plants National Database, NatureServe, ITIS, CNHP, Ackerfield, the Flora of North America and Weber and Wittmann recognize Stellaria irrigua as valid.

5. Distribution, abundance, and population trend on the planning unit [12.53.2,3,4]: This species is known from around 12 collections on the GMUG NF with the most recent in 2011. These collections do not note any threats, trend, or population data. There are around a total of 95 collections in Colorado. Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS and CONHP database) Known Occurrences 12

Year Last Observed 2011

6. Brief description of natural history and key ecological functions [basis for other 12.53 components]: Colorado starwort grows in rocky alpine slopes between 10,000 and 14,000 on the GMUG.

221

8. Key literature: Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press. Fort Worth, TX. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Element Occurrence Records. Unpublished data stored on U.S. Forest Service Geographic Information Systems Servers. Compiled onto USFS Servers from CNHP database February 2017. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2015. Online database. http://www.itis.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 19+ vols. New York and Oxford. Treatment accessed September 19, 2017 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id= 233500026 NatureServe, 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Online database. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm Accessed September 19, 2017 Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. USDA NRCS Plants National Database. 2015. Online database. http://plants.usda.gov/ Accessed September 19, 2017. Weber, W.A. and Wittmann, R.C. 2012. Colorado Flora 4th ed. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO.

Subularia aquatica (water awlwort) Subularia aquatica L. (SUAQ) Common name(s): water awlwort. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by all botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Only known from Colorado since 1993 (Nelson and Harmon 1993). North American plants are Subularia aquatica L. ssp. americana G. A. Mulligan and Calder (Al-Shehbaz 2010). Distribution. Alaska and Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador, through all of Canada, south to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado; Michigan, Pennsylvania, New England states; northern Europe, Russia. In Colorado, in Larimer and Mesa

222

Counties. Two or three sites known in Colorado, one site on GMUG; although the plants are small and difficult to spot. Subularia aquatica “is often found growing in conjunction with other plants that have similar awl-shaped or grass-like leaves” (Nelson and Harmon 1993). This means there are a lot of wetland sites with, say, Eleocharis spp., that need to be searched for Subularia.

Abundance and population trend. “Abundant” (Larimer County); only 2 found (GMUG site). Trend unknown; species newly discovered in Colorado. Habitat. At the Larimer County site, “muddy lake bottom, in association with Isoetes bolanderi, another abundant species” (Nelson and Harmon 1993). At the Grand Mesa site, “aquatic plant community in fen, with Isoetes bolanderi;” most of the fen is dominated by Carex saxatilis , Carex utriculata,and Sparganium minimum (Austin 2006). Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fen, Montane-Alpine Wet Meadow and Marsh, Lakes and Reservoirs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous aquatic plant. “Flowers either self-pollinating or when submerged cleistogamous,” automatic self-pollination without flowers opening (Nelson and Harmon 1993). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Area near the GMUG site is accessible by ATV-UTVs, and used by snowmobiles in winter. Possible snow compaction by snowmobiles (Austin 2006). The site is managed with an emphasis on timber management. Illegal off- road/route ATVs/motor vehicles would tend to reduce water table and would likely lead to decline in Subularia populations. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Fens and other wetlands in undisturbed condition, with natural water table levels. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation (Neely et al. 2011).

223

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised June 3, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. 2010. Subularia Linnaeus. In Flora of North America, Volume 7. Austin, G. 2006. Field Survey for Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Plant Species. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Nelson, Jody K.; and William E. Harmon. 1993. Discovery of Subularia aquatica L. in Colorado and the extension of its range. Rhodora 95(882):155-157. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Sullivantia hapemanii (Hanging Garden sullivantia) Sullivantia hapemanii (J. M. Coulter & Fisher) J. M. Coulter var. purpusii (Brandegee) Soltis (SUHAP) Boykinia purpusii Brandegee, Sullivantia purpusii (Brandegee) Rosendahl Common name(s): Purpus' sullivantia, Hanging Garden sullivantia. Rank (CNHP 2017): G3T3/S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G3/S3 Taxonomy. Originally described as Boykinia purpusii by T. S. Brandegee in 1899, based on a collection made by Carl A, Purpus, no. 512 in July 1893, “on moist rocks of the Black Cañon … at an elevation of 7,200 ft.” (Brandegee 1899, Tiehm 2002, Ertter 2002). This was transferred to the genus Sullivantia by Rosendahl in 1927, then finally as a variety of S. hapemanii by Soltis in 1991. Now accepted as a variety by all Colorado botanists (Soltis 2009, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Endemic to west-central Colorado, in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, Gunnison, and Montrose Counties. Known from - 40–50 sites,: many botanists (myself included) stopped recording or writing reports on new sites some years ago. . There have been few extensive searches, and large portions of the Forest remain to be searched,. In all cases seen so far, the species is intensive for its habitat. Abundance and population trend. 34 records from Colorado at CNHP. 6-10 known locations on the GMUG. 20 sites have population counts in CNHP records, ranging from 15 to >4,500, average about 1,050.

224

Habitat. Moist canyon walls, wet cliffs, and near waterfalls, on shale, limestone, and other rocks such that water containing Calcium carbonate feeds the plants. In all cases I have observed, the plants are always found within these habitats, and almost always the plants are intensive for the habitat. These habitats have been stable on the GMUG for several decades at least. Site No. Site No. Plants Plants 839* 200 8068 200 840 >300 8407 250 1539 ±1,000 9594 3,000 2314* >1,000 9838 1,000 2322 100 10100 >4,500 3504 1,500 12763 400 3505 >5,000 13614 120 5374 ±15 15323 23 5959 2,000 15660 100 7186 ±15 15661 300

Total >21,000 *GMUG population

Forest Plan Ecosystems. Wet limestone or dolomite cliffs and seeps, mostly mapped within Spruce- Fir Forest, Cool-mixed Conifer Forest, Spruce-Fir-Aspen; Black Canyon and Curecanti populations (below National Forest) would be mapped within Douglas-Fir Forest. Also may be mapped as Limestone Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Most populations are isolated and self-fertile. In most cases, plants are intensive for available suitable habitat. Most seed produced is viable. “Many Sullivantia populations appear to be fixed for certain morphological characters. These are often distinctive and readily differentiate a given population from other Sullivantia populations” (Soltis 1982-1991). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Limestone cliffs, seeps, and waterfalls are not actively managed, and little occurs in these habitats that might affect the plants. Even populations close to common recreation sites or on old marble mines (on an adjacent National Forest) seem to be stable and flourishing. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Continuous water supply to waterfalls and seeps on limestone or other carbonate rock. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to the species’ narrow ecological amplitude, general restriction to limestone, and habit fragility (seeps, springs, and streamsides) (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, Revised June 3, 2017.

225

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Brandegee, T.S., 1899. New species of western plants. Botanical Gazette, 27(6), pp.444-457. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ertter, Barbara. 2002. Collections of Carl A. Purpus. Online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/Purpus/collections1.html Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Soltis, Douglas E. 1982. Allozymic variability in Sullivantia (Saxifragaceae). Systematic Botany 7(1): 26-34. Soltis, Douglas E. 1991. A revision of Sullivantia (Saxifragaceae). Brittonia 43(1): 27-53. Soltis, Douglas E. 2009. Sullivantia Torrey and A. Gray. In Flora of North America, Volume 8. Tiehm, Jerry. 2002. U. S. types based on Purpus collections. Online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/Purpus/types.html Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Thalictrum heliophilum (sunloving meadowrue) Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (THHE2) Common name(s): Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue, sun-loving meadowrue. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2/S2, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists since its description (Wilken and DeMott 1983, Park and Festerling 1997); but Weber and Wittmann (2012) combine it with Thalictrum foetidum L., a calciphile species of Eurasia. Accepted as Thalictrum heliophilum by Ackerfield (2015). Distribution. Thalictrum heliophilum is endemic to Colorado, in Garfield, Mesa, and Rio Blanco Counties. 23 records at CNHP. One site on GMUG, shared with Physaria parviflora and Argillochloa dasyclada. EO No. Plants

1876 >100

226

1968 >500

2167 >1,000

2722 >4,500

3124 45

5987 ±1,000

5988 >100

6727 10

7262 >100

7282 ±2,000

7844 645

7845 ±1,000

8010 75

11185 >1,000

11186 >100,000

Total >112,000

Abundance and population trend. Fifteen populations have been counted, ranging from ten to over 100,000. I estimate the GMUG population at less than 50, but this is part of a larger population that continues over the divide to the White River National Forest. Trend data not available. Spackman Panjabi and Anderson (2007) list 35 sites, with approximate number of plants totaling over 156,000. It is possible that there are other, undiscovered sites on Battlement Mesa, not very well explored botanically. The site on the GMUG is the southern-most known for this species Habitat. Open barren shale slopes, Green River formation, 6,250–8,800 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Barren shale slopes, probably mapped within Montane Shrubland – Oak– Serviceberry–Mountain-Mahogany. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial dioecious plants (individual plants are either male or female), probably wind-pollinated and obligate out-crosser (Spackman Panjabi and Anderson 2007). Observations indicate that the plants are probably not palatable to herbivores, and the habitat is difficult for them, anyway. Effects on species and habitat by current management. Management at the GMUG site emphasizes habitat for a management indicator species, probably bighorn sheep; the area is not grazed by livestock. The road to the site on the GMUG side has a locked gate at the base. The semi-barren shale slopes do not support much forage or browse for large herbivores. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Based on current knowledge, the GMUG has a very small portion of habitat for Thalictrum heliophilum. To contribute to viability of the larger population, provide undisturbed shale slopes in the Green River Formation. This species is known from a single location on the GMUG; populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

227

This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with very high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change on BLM lands in Colorado based on Thalictrum heliophilum’s preference for soils derived from shale of the Green River Formation, its predicted sensitivity to changes in precipitation, and limited dispersal ability (CNHP 2015). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 4, 2016, revised June 2, 2017. Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Park, Marilyn M.; and Dennis Festerling, Jr. 1997. Thalictrum Linnaeus. Pp. 258-271 in Flora of North America north of Mexico, Volume 3: Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 590 pp. Spackman Panjabi, Susan; and David G. Anderson. 2007. Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue): A technical conservation assessment. Denver, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 37 pp. Published online. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Wilken, Dieter H.; and Kirby DeMott. 1983. A new species of Thalictrum (Ranunculaceae) from western Colorado. Brittonia 35(2):156-158.

Townsendia rothrockii (Rothrock’s Townsend daisy) Townsendia rothrockii A. Gray ex Rothrock 1879 (TORO) Common name(s): Rothrock's Townsend daisy. Rank (CNHP 2017): G2G3/S2S3, Fully Tracked. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G2G3/S2S3 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Beaman 1957, Strother 2006, Weber and Wittmann 2012). However, Strother (2006) says “the types of Townsendia rothrockii and T. glabella [A. Gray 1881] may be conspecific.” Distribution. Endemic to Colorado, in Archuleta, Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, La Plata, Mesa, Park, Pitkin, San Juan, and Summit Counties29 records at CNHP. 75-80 sites in Colorado, 20-25 sites on the GMUG. Beatty and others (2004) list 35 locations in Colorado. EO No. Indiv,. 554 >200 887 >100 2614* >2,000 11726 2,000 11739 5,000 13104 >1,000 14117 48 14118* 175

228

14826* >2,000 15595* 57 Total >12,600 * GMUG site

Abundance and population trend. CNHP has ten sites that were counted, ranging from 48 to 5,000, averaging over 1,200. The four sites on the GMUG that were counted range from 57 to >2,000. Four herbarium specimens collected where Townsendia rothrockii “abundant.” Population trends unknown (Beatty and others 2004). In the last 15 years, eight to ten sites on the GMUG have been discovered by floristic inventories, rather than intensive searches for the species. Habitat. Two different habitats: 1. High subalpine and alpine meadows, rocky alpine tundra, alpine ridges and talus slopes, preference for limestone or other calcareous substrates, 11,400–13,000 ft. 2. Sagebrush, openings in pine forests, montane grasslands, 8,800–10,000 ft. Perhaps these differences are related to the close relationship between T. rothrockii and T. glabella. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Ponderosa Pine Forest, Sagebrush Shrublands, Alpine Uplands, Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Herbaceous perennial plants with basal rosettes. Reproduction primarily by seed, some plants apomictic, producing seed without fertilization (Beaman 1957). Plants are apparently not palatable to herbivores, large or small, and observations indicate plants are resistant to trampling. Effects on species and habitat by current management. On the GMUG, the lower-elevation sites are managed to emphasize livestock grazing; the plants are apparently resistant to grazing, since several of the lower-elevation sites have been moderately heavily grazed for over a century. The higher-elevation sites are mostly managed to emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation, but the sites where they occur are usually inaccessible to off-road vehicles; five sites on the GMUG of them are vulnerable to off-road off-trail vehicles. Four or five sites are managed as wilderness. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable, undisturbed alpine sites, especially in limestone areas. Maintain northern Uncompahgre Plateau rangelands in acceptable range condition. Lower-elevation sites on the northern Uncompahgre Plateau appear to be stable in spite of grazing pressure. Alpine sites in wilderness and the Fossil Ridge Special Management Area are protected from disturbance by off-road/off-trail vehicles. In two alpine areas, the populations are subject to illegal off-road/off-trail vehicle use: at Italian and American Flag Mountains, and at Taylor Pass. In both these places, there are several other at-risk plant species. This species is considered to be Extremely Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and the San Juan Mountains based primarily on this perennial forb’s species adaptability to a variety of substrates including limestone, sandstone and volcanic substrates, dependence on ice and snow habitats, and presence of natural barriers within its habitat (Neely et al. 2011, Handwerk et al. 2014). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 4, 2016, revised June 2, 2017.

229

Literature Cited Beaman, John H. 1957. Systematics and evolution of Townsendia. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium 183: 1-151. Beatty, Brenda; William Jennings; and Rebecca Rawlinson. 2004. Townsendia rothrockii Gray ex Rothrock (Rothrock Townsend daisy): A technical conservation assessment. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 39 pp. Published online. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Handwerk J., B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Strother, John L. 2006 Townsendia Hooker. In Flora of North America, Volume 20. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Trichophorum pumilum (little bulrush) Trichophorum pumilum (Vahl) Schinz & Thellung (TRPU18) Scirpus pumilus Vahl, Scirpus rollandii Fernald Common name(s): Rolland's bulrush, Rolland's leafless-bulrush, little bulrush. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Idaho and California, S2 in Wyoming, S3 in Montana. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Formerly, this species was known as Scirpus rollandii in North America, but now it is accepted as part of the circumpolar boreal species Trichophorum pumilum. Some states still call it S. rollandii. Accepted as the species Trichophorum pumilum by Colorado botanists (Crins 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, California; Quebec; northern Europe, central Asia. In Colorado, in Park and Gunnison Counties. Ten records from Colorado at CNHP. One site on GMUG; a small fraction of the population is on NFS (between the property boundary and a gravel road), most of population is on private land. The site also has Carex viridula, Kobresia simpliciuscula, and Hippochaete variegata. Abundance and population trend. Only two occurrences have been counted by CNHP; several observers commented that the plants are small and difficult to detect, so difficult to count. The

230

Gunnison County site has “a dense population that is widespread on the site” (CNHP); but only a small fraction of the population is on NFS land, perhaps a tenth. EO No. Indiv.

1427* 1,000

14491 50

Total 1050

*GMUG site.

Habitat. In Colorado, rich calcareous fens, often with Kobresia myosuroides (Johnson and Steingraeber 2003), 9,200–11,000 ft elevation. On the GMUG, in (a portion of) a calcareous fen at 9,300 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial herbaceous graminoid with rhizomes; small wetland plants. Effects on species and habitat by current management. The NFS portion of the Gunnison County site is adjacent to a heavily-used gravel road maintained by the county. This population is affected by dust from the road and road maintenance; the portion of the site on private land is grazed. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. The single population is itself only marginally on NFS land. The majority (about 90%) of the population is on private land held by one landowner, thus making the conservation of the species on the GMUG portion of the fen critical for maintaining viability of this species on the GMUG. Populations that are small and isolated from other populations of the same species face reproductive barriers and are subject to genetic drift and loss from stochastic events.

231

Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised May 27, 2017.

Trifolium kingii (King’s clover) Trifolium kingii S. Watson (TRKI) Common name(s): King's clover. Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S1, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Arizona; Not Ranked in Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S1 Taxonomy. Accepted as a species by most botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Trifolium kingii S. Watson ssp. macilentum (Greene) Gillett is not in Colorado, distributed to the west. Distribution. The species is known from Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. In Colorado in Delta, Dolores, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties. 20-25 locations in Colorado from herbarium specimens. 15 occurrences in CNHP data base. Eleven locations in the GMUG. No. Site Plants 492* ±500 4692* 42 5744* ±5,000 6013* >1,000 8901* ±500

232

9751* >1,000 11465 12 12259 >1,000 12261 >500 12262 >200 12263 >1,000 12264 >100 12265 >1,000 13110 >200 Total >18,000 *. GMUG site.

Abundance and population trend. Fourteen Colorado populations have been counted; numbers range from 12 to 5,000, averaging at about 1,250. The six GMUG populations that have been counted range from 12 to 5,000. Trend data unavailable. “Widespread in the mountains of Utah (ten counties) in alpine meadows, along streambanks, and in open aspen and spruce-fir woods (Barneby 1989; Welsh et al. 1993); a conspicuous element of late-summer meadows (Isely 1998)” (NatureServe). Habitat. In Colorado, roadsides, openings, meadows, and slopes, in aspen, spruce-fir, usually moist to seasonally wet sites, 9,000–10,800 ft elevation. On the GMUG, moist meadows and openings in conifer and aspen forests. Forest Plan Ecosystems. Aspen, Cool moist mixed conifer, Montane-subalpine grasslands, Spruce- Fir Spruce-Fir-Aspen. The larger sites have been mapped within Montane–Subalpine Grasslands ecosystem; smaller sites are mapped within adjacent forests. In either case, adjacent forests are mostly in the Spruce-Fir-Aspen ecosystem, with fewer sites in the Aspen ecosystem and the "Cool, Moist Mixed Confier" ecosystem. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial rhizomatous herbaceous plants. Most clover species are palatable to livestock and wild herbivores (Dayton and others 1937). Effects on species and habitat by current management. Several sites are grazed by livestock, and Trifolium kingii is likely palatable. On the other hand, the sites on the GMUG where this plant occurs have been heavily used by livestock over the last 130 years or so, such that most of the palatable native vegetation is gone; yet populations of this species are sometimes large. Apparently the plants can tolerate at least moderate site disturbance and moderate to heavy grazing by herbivores, livestock and large wildlife. Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Conditions in moist meadows and grasslands of the Uncompahgre Plateau and northern San Juan Mountains. Given that the populations of Trifolium kingii have survived moderate to heavy grazing by livestock, deer, and elk. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in

233

insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, August 27, 2016, revised May 27, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Barneby, R.C., 1989. Fabales. New York Botanical Garden. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Dayton, W.A., Lommasson, T. and Park, B.C., 1937. Range plant handbook. US Government Printing Office. Isely, Duane. 1998. Native and naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum. 1,007 pp. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp. Welsh, S.L., 1993. New taxa and new nomenclatural combinations in the Utah flora. Rhodora, pp.392-421.

Utricularia minor (lesser bladderwort) Utricularia minor L. (UTMI) Common name(s): lesser bladderwort Rank (CNHP 2017): G5/S2, Fully Tracked. Ranked S1 in Utah, S2 in Wyoming and Nebraska, S2? in Washington, S2S3 in North Dakota. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G5/S2 Taxonomy. Accepted by all botanists (Weber and Wittmann 2012, Ackerfield 2015). EO No. Plants 12760* 15 13212 200 13259 100 13655* 65

234

15076 500 15702 2,000 Total 3,880 *GMUG population

Distribution. Alaska and Yukon, across Canada to Labrador and Newfoundland, south to California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; Europe. In Colorado, in Alamosa, Boulder, Chaffee, Delta, El Paso, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, and Park Counties. Known from 30-40 Colorado locations, but few extensive searches. More than 6 locations in Wyoming. Few people know how to search for this plant. Abundance and population trend on the GMUG. Eleven records from Colorado at CNHP. Six populations have been counted by CNHP; the numbers range from 15 to 2,000, averaging about 650 individuals; these are difficult to count, since individual plants often occur intertwined. 22 sites on the GMUG, all in fens, all but two on the Grand Mesa. This is a very small, aquatic plant, which is easily overlooked – so this may be discovered in other sites on the Forest. In 2004, the numbers of Utricularia minor in four fens on Grand Mesa were estimated at around 100 individuals (Austin 2006). At three of the Grand Mesa sites, water levels are continually managed, probably resulting in some loss of individuals. Habitat. Shallow ponds, lakes, slow-moving streams, fens, fresh-water wetlands, plains and foothills to subalpine. Forest Plan Ecosystems. On the GMUG, all the known sites are in Fens. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Very little is known of this species’ natural history, demographics, or population structure (Neid 2006). The plants on the GMUG have never been seen in flower. Effects on species and habitat by current management. These sites are declining in quantity and quality: there has been about 25% decline in suitable habitat in this area, as measured on National Wetlands Inventory maps between 1979-1995 and visual observation up to present (Austin 2008, Austin and Cooper 2015). Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Maintenance of land and water sources for fens and a suitable buffer (usually 100 m, see Rocchio 2006). This plant occurs in relatively small numbers on the GMUG, and both the plants and its habitat (fens) are highly vulnerable to any off-trail vehicle activity, ditching, excessive livestock grazing, and water

235

management practices, particularly drawing down and flooding of reservoirs. Viability concern for this species on the GMUG is high. This species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with high confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains because its fen habitat is similarly vulnerable from changes in the monsoon pattern and ground water alteration associated with changes in precipitation as well as the species’ restriction to fens and shallow, high elevation lakes, reliance on snow cover for insulation, and natural barriers to movement created by local mountain ranges (Handwerk et al. 2014, Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 4, 2016, revised May 26, 2017.

Literature Cited Ackerfield, J. (2015). Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press. Austin, G. 2006. Field Survey for Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Plant Species. Austin, Gay. 2008. Fens of Grand Mesa, Colorado: Characterization, impacts from human activities, and restoration. M. A. Thesis, Prescott College, Department of Environmental Studies, Prescott, AZ. 120 pp. Austin, Gay; and David J. Cooper. 2015. Persistence of high elevation fens in the Southern Rocky Mountains, on Grand Mesa, Colorado, U.S.A. Wetlands Ecology and Management. Published online on September 9, 2015. DOI 10.1007/s11273-015-9458-7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. J. Handwerk, B. Kuhn, R. Rondeau, and L. Grunau. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Rare Plants of the San Juan Region of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Neely, B., R. Rondeau, J. Sanderson, C. Pague, B. Kuhn, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, J. Robertson, P. McCarthy, J. Barsugli, T. Schulz, and C. Knapp. Editors. 2011. Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability Assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group by The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative. Neid, Stephanie L. 2006. Utricularia minor L. (lesser bladderwort): A technical conservation assessment. Golden, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 48 pp. Rocchio, Joe. 2006. Rocky Mountain subalpine-montane fen ecological system: Ecological integrity assessment. 78 pp. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Weber, William A..; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 532 pp.

Woodsia neomexicana (New Mexico cliff fern) Woodsia neomexicana Windham 1993 (WONE)

236

Common name(s): New Mexico cliff fern. Rank (CNHP 2016): G4?/S2, Fully Tracked. Not Ranked in all other states. Rank (NatureServe 2018): G4?/S2 Taxonomy. Woodsia neomexicana is a recently described species, in 1993 (Windham 1993); before that, most of these plants were included in W. mexicana Fée. Woodsia neomexicana has been accepted by most botanists since then (Weber and Wittman 2012, Ackerfield 2015). Distribution. Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma; South Dakota. In Colorado, in Archuleta, Baca, Boulder, Conejos, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Hinsdale, La Plata, Las Animas, Otero, Ouray, Pueblo, and Saguache Counties. 24 records in Colorado from CNHP data (2017); 40-50 sites in Colorado including herbarium specimens. Twelve sites on the GMUG, most near Ouray in Ouray County. EO No. Indiv. 863* >200 5231 >30 5690* >30 8979† >35 9595* >10 9738† 10 11159† 9 11730 2 11742 65 11754 11 13109 >200 Total >600 *.Part on GMUG †.All on GMUG

Abundance and population trend. Five populations near Ouray have been counted; counts range from 10 to >200, totaling 294 (CNHP). Two of these six occurrences are only partly on the GMUG. Observers have noted that the cliffs and steep canyon sides that form the habitat make it difficult to accurately estimate population sizes; thus these counts may be seen as lower limits in most cases. Trend data unknown; populations have been counted once. Habitat. Rock outcrops, crevices and niches in cliffs, foot of steep canyon sides, among rocks on slopes, variety of geological substrates, 4,200–9,800 ft elevation. Forest Plan Ecosystems. These cliffs and breaks are large, but generally in the lower part of the Spruce-Fir Ecosystem and the upper part of the "Cool, Moist Mixed Conifer" Ecosystem, dominated here by Douglas-fir with an occasional white fir (Abies concolor), rare on the GMUG. Also Rocky Slopes, Screes, Cliffs. Natural history of species, key ecological functions, demographics, population structure. Perennial fern, reproducing by spores, spores small, carried easily wind and water. Effects on species and habitat by current management. One GMUG site is managed to emphasize semi-primitive non-motorized recreation; three are managed to emphasize roaded natural recreation; and one is in a wilderness area. The habitat prevents access by motorized vehicles; but one of the sites is in an area commonly used by rock climbers.

237

Ecological conditions necessary for recovery, conservation, and viability. Stable, undisturbed rocks and crevices in the area of this fern's habitat in the Ouray area. This species is not easy to assess, given the difficult access for much of its habitat, and the uncertain counts that derive from that. Concerns are limited to the small portion of this species' habitat that is used for rock climbing. Several of the CNHP records indicate that "protection is not needed" because of inaccessible habitats. The spruce-fir habitat of this species is considered to be Moderately Vulnerable (with low confidence) to negative impacts from climate change in the Gunnison Basin due to increases in insect mortality and root diseases associated with warmer temperatures and drier growing seasons (Neely et al. 2011). Author and Date. Barry C. Johnston, September 4, 2016, revised May 26, 2017.

238