1. Species [12.53 1]: Neoparrya lithophila Mathias [syn. = Aletes lithophila (Mathias) W.A. Weber; Aletes lithophilus (Mathias) Weber] (Bill’s neoparrya; rock-loving aletes).

2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this plant by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status.

Table 1. Current status of Neoparrya lithophila. Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

CNHPa G3 Globally vulnerable; typically 21 to 100 occurrences. CNHP S3 State vulnerable; typically 21 to 100 occurrences. USDA Forest Sensitive Species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as Service evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

USDI FWSb Not Not federally recognized under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered, Listed threatened, proposed, or candidate species. a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

The 2012 U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule defines Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) as “a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the long- term in the plan area” (36 CFR 219.9). This overview was developed to summarize information relating to this species’ consideration to be listed as a SCC on the Rio Grande National Forest, and to aid in the development of plan components and monitoring objectives.

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

Neoparrya lithophila is known from Chaffee, Conejos, Fremont, Huerfano, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties (CNHP 2015). A collection was also made in Mineral County near the Rio Grande County line (Flaig personal communication 2004). There are 21-80 occurrences (30 principle occurrences)1 (NatureServe 2015).

Neoparrya lithophila is endemic to south-central Colorado. Most occurrences are known from the western rim of the San Luis Valley, but important outlying occurrences are also found in the Arkansas Valley in the Salida area and at Farisita Dike in Huerfano County. Neoparrya lithophila was also reportedly found in north-central New Mexico by Dr. Ron Hartman (Univ. of Wyoming), but this has not been reported by NatureServe (2015).

1 Any naturally occurring population that is separated by a sufficient distance or barrier from a neighboring population. As a guideline, Element Occurrences (EOs) are separated by either: 1 mile or more across unsuitable habitat or altered and unsuitable areas; or 2 miles or more across apparently suitable habitat not known to be occupied.

1 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 Anderson (2004) estimated the total number of individuals for Neoparrya lithophila across its known range between 48,680 and 58,490. Approximately 9,500 individuals were estimated within occurrences on US Forest Service (USFS) land. Known occurrences of N. lithophila range in size from approximately 10 individuals to approximately 8,000 at East Butte in Rio Grande County.

Nine of the known occurrences are considered excellent (thus receiving an element occurrence rank of “A”) by the CNHP. Of these, four are on the Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF). The criteria for determining this quality rank are population size, size of occupied area, condition of the habitat, and landscape context of the surrounding area. For N. lithophila, an excellent occurrence typically consists of more than 3,000 individuals. However, smaller populations of this species appear to be viable and have shown no signs of decline due to inbreeding depression.

There is no evidence of either population decline or increase in Neoparrya lithophila. One monitoring study in Huerfano County found that the population did not fluctuate greatly from year to year (over a four-year study). This study also suggested that N. lithophila did not exhibit prolonged dormancy. There are no data from which population trend can be quantified for any of the other known occurrences in its range. [primary source2: Anderson 2004].

USFS Corporate Database Habitat Type Associated with the Species, and Acreage of this Habitat on the Planning Unit: the habitat for this species would be considered a sparse forb cover type. A query was made of the RGNF’s resource database to tally the acres of rocky/bouldery habitats on elevations between 7,500 to 8,500 feet. This results in a very coarse, preliminary filter of potential habitat. Using this query, the eastern face of the San Juan Mountain portion of the RGNF was found to contain roughly 12,000 potential acres. This query could be further refined with additional criteria as more is learned about the habitat to create a better refined search image for N. lithophila. [source: USDA Forest Service 2015].

CNHP Ecological System of the Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregion: this species’ affinity to rocky/bouldery habitat and dominant elevation range (7,500-8,500 feet) would best fit into the Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock Ecoregion.

[source: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/eco_systems/eco_systems.asp].

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

Neoparrya lithophila is a perennial forb found in xeric sites that are mostly open, exposed, rocky or sandy. Elevation documented in CNHP element occurrence records and herbarium specimen labels ranges from 7,280 to 9,800 feet, but N. lithophila is most commonly found between 7,500 and 8,500 feet in elevation.

2 Primary source, as used here, means the reference cited was used verbatim at times. However, text was significantly abbreviated and citations were dropped for brevity. See the original reference for detailed analysis and complete literature citations.

2 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 The common associated flora on the RGNF is as follows: Pinus edulis, Sabina scopulorum, Sabina monosperma, Opuntia polyacantha, Echinocereus triglochidatus, Oryzopsis micrantha, Artemisia frigida, Rhus aromatica spp. trilobata, Eriogonum jamesii var. jamesii, Cercocarpus montanus, Chrysothamnus greenei, Gutierrezia sarothrae, Oligosporus dracunculus, Erigeron vetensis, Muhlenbergia montana, Pascopyron smithii, Stipa comata, Elymus elymoides, Ribes cereum, Chondrosum gracile, Poa fendleriana, Stipa hymenoides, and Heterotheca villosa.

Neoparrya lithophila is found primarily on late-Tertiary volcanic substrates. These include dikes, lava flows, and igneous outcrops composed primarily of basalt or tuff. It is primarily distributed along the eastern margin of the San Juan Volcanic Area (O’Kane et al. 1988). Tertiary ash flow tuff and pre-ash flow volcanics underlie much of the eastern San Juan Mountains.

Neoparrya lithophila is also found on sedimentary rock derived from extrusive volcanics of the Dry Union Formation at Salida. It has also been reported on limestone where leachates from volcanic material above were apparently affecting the soil chemistry. This observation suggests that N. lithophila is sensitive to some aspect of the soil chemistry that is soluble in water. This also suggests that N. lithophila might have a somewhat broader ecological amplitude than previously believed.

Neoparrya lithophila is most commonly found growing on rock shelves or in cracks on steep, inaccessible volcanic cliffs and rock outcrops. Its affinity for this habitat gives the plant a large degree of natural protection at many locations. The habitat for N. lithophila at most locations is relatively stable and is not subject to frequent disturbance. The associated vegetation is typically sparse. Neoparrya lithophila is typically found in full sun unless shaded by cliffs and rocks, as is often the case. A very small occurrence (approximately 10 individuals) was found in Mineral County in the shade of Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) (Flaig personal communication 2004). It appears that this habitat is highly atypical, but further survey work is needed to determine the suitability of these habitats for N. lithophila.

Although Neoparrya lithophila is found on all aspects, reports in element occurrence records suggest that it favors north slopes. These sites are nonetheless still quite xeric. It is possible that the species is not responding to moisture or insolation, but to the availability of microsites, which may be a function of differential weathering of the rocky substrate or other secondary effects of aspect. Neoparrya lithophila typically grows on very steep to vertical slopes. It is possible that it is limited to these sites by herbivore impacts and competition with other species that would occur on more level substrates.

Neoparrya lithophila is a slow-growing, long-lived species. Neoparrya lithophila is probably self-fertile, although there have been no investigations to confirm this. The floral biology of N. lithophila is not well understood. It is suspected that this species relies on generalist pollinators for pollination—an assumption given the floral uniformity of the Apiaceae family. However, there are no studies to confirm this nor are the pollinators known.

Neoparrya lithophila blooms from May to early July and sets fruit from late June through September. Neoparrya lithophila reproduces by seeds that are shed in late summer. Young plants with poorly developed root systems are probably more vulnerable to desiccation than mature plants. Thus, the periodicity of successful recruitment may coincide with periods of one or several wet years during which they can become established.

3 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 The seed of N. lithophila is not winged and appears less adapted to long distance dispersal by wind than many other members of the Apiaceae family. There have been no investigations into the dispersal mechanisms employed by N. lithophila, but it is speculated that it may be dispersed by birds. Birds would be an excellent dispersal vector for N. lithophila since the high and rugged rock outcrops it inhabits are excellent perches. The oils within the seeds may render them indigestible to birds, causing them to be defecated elsewhere. The fruits are also quite sticky, which could facilitate dispersal on mammals or birds by sticking to their feet or bodies.

Given the large seed size of N. lithophila, it is likely that seeds are able to survive in the seed bank for more than one season, since larger seeds are typically long-lived. In many locations, where the plants are growing on cliffs in cracks in the rock, there is very little soil in which a seed bank could potentially reside, and few safe sites in which seeds can lodge and germinate. Because the probability of successful immigration is necessarily low in these habitats, species with perennial life histories are naturally favored.

There have been no studies of the mycorrhizal relationships in N. lithophila. There is no information on parasites, diseases, or association with arthropods3.

Neoparrya lithophila occurs in naturally small, isolated occurrences. The amount of geneflow is unknown, but because distances of many miles separate many occurrences it can be assumed that geneflow is limited. Endemic and rare taxa often have low genetic variability. They also tend to have greater rates of self-pollination and inbreeding.

The level of genetic variability in N. lithophila has not been measured. No Population Viability Analysis (PVA) has been performed for N. lithophila. Seed production, seed longevity, seed dormancy, and variables controlling these parameters are unknown. Longevity is also unknown, yet critical for understanding the demography of this species.

As a habitat specialist, population sizes of N. lithophila are naturally limited by the availability of habitat. The volcanic rock outcrops and cliffs on which N. lithophila lives are small and insular. Within an area of suitable habitat, the availability of microsites suitable for N. lithophila is also limited, in most places precluding the development of a large population. Thus, the distribution and physiognomy of habitat for N. lithophila imposes constraints on population growth at a variety of scales. [primary source: Anderson 2004].

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

There is a significant amount of potential habitat (volcanic cliffs and rock outcrop) across the known elevation range for this species along the eastern front of the San Juan Mountains within the RNGF. However, as stated above, there are many uncertainties of what constitutes suitable habitat for this species.

3 an invertebrate animal having an exoskeleton, a segmented body, and jointed appendages.

4 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 Plant collecting is not known to be a threat to this species on the RGNF. The possible threats to the known occurrences on the RGNF are generally categorized as follows: recreation; permitted livestock; wildlife use; mining; exotic species; roads and trails; natural disturbance; and global climate change. Each of these potential threats is briefly discussed below.

Recreation. Foot traffic and recreation livestock (primarily horses; possibly pack goats and llamas at times) would be expected on designated trails with infrequent, incidental cross-country foot/stock traffic possibly intersecting a population of N. lithophila. Dispersed camping (campsites, campfire rings, trash, and rock climbing) could potentially intersect a population. However, populations in steep, bouldery habitat may be naturally isolated and protected better than those that are more accessible.

Motorized use would be expected on designated routes, with only incidental impacts expected where occupied habitat and routes intersect. However, user-created routes (i.e., unauthorized routes) can create negative impacts and they should be immediately addressed when encountered. There are documented incidents of this impact occurring in the past at Elephant Rocks. Much of this has been mitigated in recent years (i.e., closing unauthorized roads).

The RGNF’s afternoon big game ATV game retrieval policy creates the opportunity where an ATV could potentially intersect occupied habitat. This scenario would only occur where the terrain accommodated ATV access. It is unknown how much habitat is potentially affected. There are no documented effects from this activity.

Five of the reported sites of N. lithophila are in a 3.1 Special Interest Area (botanical) Management Area; two are in a 2.2 Research Natural Area Management Area; and two are in 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range Management Area. Consequently, winter snowmobile use is only authorized on designated roads and trails in prescriptions 3.1 and 5.41. Snowmobiles are not allowed in prescription 2.2. Thus, there should be no snowmobile impacts on this species. Also, the typical rocky/bouldery habitat physically restricts and mostly isolates populations from this potential use/impact. There are no documented effects from this activity.

Permitted livestock. The RGNF has been open to domestic livestock grazing since the late 1800s. There are occurrences of N. lithophila in open and active grazing allotments. Anderson (2004) reported that N. lithophila apparently has some forage value to cattle and horses. However, it appears that most occurrences are either inaccessible to livestock or are on the uplands where livestock will not frequently venture due to lack of water. Furthermore, grazing has limited impacts on most occurrences of N. lithophila because it often grows on inaccessible rock outcrops with little forage value (see Anderson 2004). No foraging has been reported on the RGNF. Location of range improvements (e.g., mineral supplements) should carefully consider/avoid occupied habitat. Overall, impacts from grazing and/or trampling on RGNF have been observed to be minor to non-existent.

Wildlife use. Anderson (2004) reported that N. lithophila apparently has some forage value to native species--possibly deer and elk. However, palatability to wildlife and trampling effects to this species are largely unknown. Documented impacts from native herbivores has not been identified, although elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, moose, and pronghorn antelope occur in habitats with N. lithophila. The impacts of arthropods and rodents are unknown.

5 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 Mining. Mining considers leasable (oil and gas), saleable (sand and gravel), and locatable (hard-rock) minerals. None of these activities are known to have impacted any occurrences. There are no known active mining claims directly threatening known occurrences on the RGNF.

Exotic species. Exotic plant species (weeds) are not common in the habitat for Neoparrya lithophila, but many element occurrence records note the presence of exotic species nearby. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is known to occur within many N. lithophila occurrences. The impact of this species on N. lithophila is not known. Dense stands of cheatgrass can alter natural fire frequencies, but the potential effect on N. lithophila is unknown. The possible ecosystem effects of exotic species on pollinators and whether that ultimately impacts N. lithophila is unknown.

Roads and trails. There is an infrastructure network of roads and trails in the RGNF and it will continue to receive periodic maintenance. Effects of this maintenance to N. lithophila are unknown. This infrastructure can potentially facilitate new invasive species spread. However, the infrastructure is not known at this time to be causing specific invasive species spread into occupied habitat or threatening known occurrences of N. lithophila.

Natural disturbance. This include events such as avalanches; water erosion; land/rock movement; fire; blowdown; frost-heaving; wind-scouring; and insects and disease. Little is known about these events and their specific relationship with this species. The type, size, frequency, and intensity of disturbances that define the natural disturbance regime are unknown.

Global climate change. Global climate change is likely to have wide-ranging effects in the future.

Projections based on current atmospheric CO2 trends suggest that average temperatures will increase while precipitation will decrease in Colorado. Temperature increase could cause vegetation zones to climb 350 feet in elevation for every degree Fahrenheit of warming.

It is unclear how N. lithophila would respond to warmer temperatures. Climate change effects to arthropod populations, both beneficial and detrimental to N. lithophila, cannot be predicted. The importance of either specific or general pollinators to N. lithophila sustainability is unknown.

Atmospheric nitrogen deposition (of both organic and inorganic forms) is increasing worldwide. Relatively low levels of nitrogen enrichment are advantageous to some species but deleterious to others, making it difficult to predict species- and community-level responses. [primary source: Anderson 2004].

Overall, based on current information, threats to N. lithophila are considered relatively low to moderate. However, this should be tempered with the high number of unknowns about this species.

6. Key ecosystem characteristics and ecological conditions for recovery, conservation, and viability:

6 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 7. NatureServe (2015) indicates that some (13-40) of the known occurrences of this species across its range are rated good4 for viability. It remains important to maintain the current populations that exist on the RGNF. At the present time, all threats appear to be at a relatively low to moderate.

The RGNF should strive to maintain habitat conditions for N. lithophila by applying suggested management practices as follows:

1) Manage habitat. Manage and adjust/reduce, where needed to protect populations, pressures from any management influences (see section 5) found to be creating unacceptable impacts.

2) Manage environmental stressors. Continue assessing the RGNF’s contribution to global climate change and adaptively adjust actions where permissible within the Forest Service’s legal and regulatory authority. Use tools such as the Forest’s Climate Change Scorecard to assess impacts and make positive changes where needed. Reductions in the RGNF’s contribution to global climate change should benefit N. lithophila.

8. Key uncertainties and information needs/gaps:

To begin a discussion of uncertainty, it is relevant to assess the overall risk to the habitat at a very broad scale. Unfortunately, N. lithophila is not specifically addressed by CNHP in this way (Neely et al. 2009; Rondeau et al. 2011). However, CNHP addresses “cliff and canyon” habitat, which may be a narrower descriptor of actual N. lithophila habitat, but still useful for this discussion. Cliff and canyon habitat occupies less than one percent of Colorado’s landscape. However, at this coarse scale these habitats are little threatened and most occurrences of species tied to these habitats are well protected (Rondeau et al. 2011). However, it is likely that N. lithophila loosely fits the “cliff and canyon” habitat characterization, and this species may be somewhat more vulnerable than indicated here.

Given the high probability that more populations await discovery in Colorado and New Mexico, further survey work remains an important information need for N. lithophila. A better understanding is needed of its range, distribution, and habitat affinities.

Very little is known about the population ecology of N. lithophila. There has been no rigorous study of the life cycle and autecology. Investigating habitat variables to which N. lithophila may be particularly responsive is important for its proper stewardship and for understanding the reasons for its rarity. For example, investigating its ecophysiological responses to variation in soil chemistry may help to determine the breadth of its habitat amplitude and critical ecological variables.

Information on the pollination ecology, dispersal ability, seed germination, and physiological ecology of this species would help greatly in prioritizing further areas for searching for this species.

The specific responses of N. lithophila to disturbance and succession are not clear and warrant further investigation. The effects of exotic species such as Bromus tectorum, Cirsium arvense, Salsola tragus,

4 Good Viability: Size: 200 or more individuals (based on available EOR data). Condition: the occurrence should have a good likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. Anthropogenic disturbance within the occurrence is minimal. If exotic species are present, they comprise less than 10% of the total ground cover.

7 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 Kochia scoparia, and Hyoscyamus niger on the viability of N. lithophila occurrences have not been investigated.

There has been little work from which meaningful inferences can be drawn regarding the metapopulation structure and dynamics of N. lithophila. Selection of monitoring sites from a variety of physiognomic and geological settings and land use scenarios will be necessary to monitor trend at the population level.

Research is needed to determine the genetic structure and diversity within and among populations, and the minimum viable population size. Reproductive output, recruitment, longevity, and other demographic parameters are not known.

Research is needed on floral biology, dispersal, predators, germination requirements, and longevity. Identifying the pollinators for N. lithophila will help to identify appropriate conservation strategies. Understanding the physiological ecology of N. lithophila will help to determine why apparently suitable habitat is not occupied. Investigations of the genetic structure of occurrences will help to understand the degree of genetic isolation and diversity of occurrences of N. lithophila. Investigating the population biology of N. lithophila will also yield valuable data such as recruitment rate and annual variation in recruitment. Studies of the autecology of N. lithophila will begin to reveal the interspecific relationships that affect it, and will help managers to predict the effects of human disturbance, weed invasion, and climate change. [primary source: Anderson 2004].

The following is an outline of a monitoring approach that could be used to inform the development of the RGNF Forest Plan revision’s monitoring plan. Additionally, areas of research opportunity (beyond the scope of the Forest Plan revision) are suggested below based on key uncertainties about this species.

1) Monitoring: monitoring priority is a judgment determination based on number of occurrences, potential threats, and conservation status. The priority for this species is thought to be low to moderate. This is primarily due to the status being G3/S3 (see Table 1), limited occurrences on the RGNF and a degree of vulnerability. Generally, existing management practices are not known to be causing detrimental impact. Only limited search effort and monitoring have been conducted, so individual occurrences may be vulnerable to unforeseen impacts. Thus, monitoring is suggested as follows:

a. Search for and document new species occurrences found on the Forest. Ensure that additional occurrences are recorded in the appropriate electronic database. Also record negative search results in an appropriate electronic database to track habitat that has been searched. Additional occurrences increase the odds in the confidence of assessing population viability, especially with greater geographic separation (e.g., finding occurrences within and outside its known range). Finding additional occurrences helps inform whether additional monitoring is needed and at what intensity.

b. Monitor known element occurrences to document presence/absence. Evaluate each occurrence, subject to available funding. Visually document the same populations every 5-7 years (twice in a planning cycle). Consider enlisting an organization such as CNHP to help develop a rapid monitoring technique that is meaningful for trend analysis but is easy to establish and simple to evaluate.

8 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 c. Make visual observations to assess if any impacts (threats) are occurring to known occurrences. Assess the type, source, frequency, and magnitude of the impact. Develop a strategy at the appropriate time for mitigating impacts (eliminate, move, delay, or reduce the impact).

2) Research:

a. Reproductive biology, autecology, and demography. There are many unknowns about this species’ life cycle suggesting numerous areas of potential research. Relationships with pollinators and arthropods are largely unknown (see Anderson 2004 for a detailed discussion).

b. Genetics. Genetic stochasticities are unknown. An accurate estimate of this species’ genetic vulnerability is unknown.

c. Disturbance. There are unknowns about the role and types of disturbance and their possible affect on N. lithophila.

d. Environmental uncertainty:

i. Continue and/or expand studies on the effects of air pollution on cliff, canyon, and massive rock environments; effects to their associated plant communities; and effects specifically on N. lithophila.

ii. Continue and/or expand studies on the effects of global climate change on cliff, canyon, and massive rock environments; effects to their associated plant communities; and effects specifically on N. lithophila.

9. Key literature:

Anderson, D.G. (2004, November 8). Neoparrya lithophila Mathias (Bill’s neoparrya): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/neoparryalithophila.pdf Date of access: May 2, 2015.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1998. Saguache County, Closed Basin Biological Inventory Volume I: A Natural Heritage Assessment Final Report. February 1998. Available online: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/reports.html.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1998. Saguache County, Closed Basin Biological Inventory Volume II: A Natural Heritage Assessment Final Report. February 1998. Available online: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/reports.html.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2000. Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. March 31, 2000. Available online: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/reports.html.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2000. Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Volume II: A Natural Heritage Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Rio Grande and Conejos Counties. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. March 2000. Available online: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/reports.html. 9 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5 Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Element Occurrence Records for the Rio Grande National Forest. Unpublished data on file at the Supervisor’s Office for the Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, Colorado. Data compiled 2/2015.

Flaig, Jeanette. 2004. Personal communications with Dean Erhard (Ecologist RGNF, retired) about Neoparrya lithophila.

NatureServe. 2015. Neoparrya lithophila. Online access to determine status/rank. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Date of access: May 2, 2015.

Neely, B., S. Panjabi, E. Lane, P. Lewis, C. Dawson, A. Kratz, B. Kurzel, T. Hogan, J. Handwerk, S. Krishnan, J. Neale, and N. Ripley. 2009. Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Strategy, Developed by the Colorado Rare Plant conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado, 117 pp.

O'Kane, S.L. Jr. 1986. Floristic reconnaissance of the San Luis Valley. Unpublished report, Colorado Natural Areas Program, Denver, Colorado. 18pp + appendices.

O’Kane, S.L., Jr., D.H. Wilken, and R.L. Hartman. 1988. Noteworthy Collections of Aralia racemosa, Astragalus humillimus, A. sericoleucus, Atriplex pleiantha, Crepis capillaris, Cryptantha weberi, Dithyrea wizlizenii, Ipomopsis congesta ssp. crebrifolia, Lomatium bicolor, Mentzelia densa, Neoparrya lithophila, and Rumex verticillatus. Madrono 35 (1):72-74.

Rondeau, R., K. Decker, J. Handwerk, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, and C. Pague. 2011. The state of Colorado's biodiversity 2011. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. R2 Individual Species Recommendation for Neoparrya lithophila. Unpublished document. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/index.shtml. Date of access: May 2, 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Supplement No. 2600- 2013-1, Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670. Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2), Denver, Colo. Effective August 24, 2013. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. RGNF GIS data. Unpublished data available from the Supervisor’s Office, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO. Date of access: May 2015.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS). 2015. Neoparrya lithophila. Online access to determine status/rank. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ Date of Access: May 2, 2015.

Weber, William A. 1958. Rediscovery of Neoparrya. Rhodora 60:265-271.

9. Envirogram:

An envirogram is not available for this species.

10. Map of Known Occurrences:

Figure 1 shows the known occurrences of Neoparrya lithophila on the RGNF.

10 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5

Figure 1. Neoparrya lithophila occurrences on the RGNF. [source: USDA Forest Service 2015].

11 Neoparrya lithophila--Assessment of At-risk Species per FSH 1909.12.5