?rm: of @6er @12wa 4' '9 4- f? RAY POWELL, BALM. Hf It: g?m?th? (505) 827.5760 COWSSIONER 310 OLD SANTA FE TRAIL no. BOX 1143 FAX (505) 8215766 SANTA FEI NEW MEXICO 87504-1148 APRIL 4, 1995 TO: I Bob Jenks, Assistant Commissioner FROM: - David Deardorff, Biologist VIA: Dennis Garcia, Field Division Director Joseph Lopez, Assistant Director Jim Norwick, Assistant Director DATE: April 4, 1995 RE: - Consequences of protecting Gypsum Wild?Buckwheat on state trust land in Eddy County. SYNOPSIS SLO has a contract with the state botanists (Bob Sivinski and Karen Lightfoot at State Forestry in Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources) to do a rare plant survey for SLO trust lands in order to inventory biological resources. On March 22, 23, 24 I accompanied Bob and Karen on a field survey for gypsum wild? buckwheat, Eriogonum gvpsophilum, on trust lands in Eddy County. We met with Jim Carr in his office in Carlsbad to discuss the survey and explain its purpose. Prior approval for the field trip was given by Joseph Lopez, Assistant Director, Field Division. This plant is listed as threatened on the federal endangered species list and is pmotected by federal law on federal land. Federal law does not protect this plant on state trust land. However, no activity which has a negative effect on this species on state trust land may be permitted by SLO if that activity involves federal permits or federal funds (such as bridge construction, or SCS funding for stock watering tanks). In addition, no activity may be permitted on state.trust land which incidentally affects federally listed plants on federal land adjacent to state trust? land. It is listed as endangered on the state list as well but this only protects it from unauthorized collection or take. On trust land this species is the property of the trust.. It is an asset whose disposition is to' be determined by the Commissioner. In other words, it is the Commissioner?s option whether or run: to extend pmotectbmi of the federal and state endangerd species acts to listed plant species on state trust land. There are economic, biological, and political consequences which must be examined should the Commissioner decide to exercise this option. This particular species, gypsum wild~buckwheat, provides a good test case for examining these consequences. Gypsum wild?buckwheat is an extremely rare plant. It only grows in Eddy County and is not known to occur anywhere else in the world. There are only three known populations and two of those occur in part on state trust land in Ben Slaughter Draw (T268, R25E, Sec. 16, 23 acres) and Black River (T258, R26E, Sec. 2, 23 acres). It is a member of the family Polygonaceae which includes several food plants (buckwheat, rhubarb, sorrel) and a few ornamentals (silver lace vine) and some common weeds (knotweed). It is unlikely that this plant will be found to be a valuable source of medicinal drugs, or of genetic material for crop improvement, or an ornamental. This species only occurs on gypsum deposits. It is an edaphic endemic and EH1 obligate gypsophile. Gypsum is as commercially valuable resource but the deposits in Eddy County are not of high enough quality to be competitive at the present time. It is possible that new populations of this species will be found on state trust land. Management considerations for this Species include avoiding negative impacts to the plant on federal land from activities permitted on state land (our permitted activities do not always stay on our side of the fence). It is good public relations to be pro?active in protecting biodiversity: Nationwide, eighty percent of the voters still favor protecting endangered species. Therefore it is in the best interest of the State Land Office to extend the protection of the federal and the state Endangered Species Acts to this plant on state trust land. However, we need t1) determine whether the economic consequences of extending protection of this species to state trust lands will negatively affect the revenue stream from these lands. The two populations which are known to occur on state trust lands occupy a total of forty six acres. Twenty three acres are in Ben Slaughter Draw and twenty three acres are in Black River. Both of these locations are active grazing leases. Both are open to oil and gas development and both are available for mining of commercial grade gypsum or sulfur. The central question is, can SLO protect this plant AND maintain revenue flow while minimizing economic impact to lessees? If we can do this we should find ourselves in a win/win situation with environmentalists on one hand and commodity groups on the other. In order to provide effective protection, SLO must work hand in hand with BLM and private landowners and lessees to develop a cooperative management plan for the protection of this species. LOCATION, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND LEASE INFORMATION: The following parcels of state trust land were identified by Sivinski and Lightfoot as promising places to look for gypsum.wild- buckwheat. All of them have outcrops of Castile Formation gypsum deposits and are within the potential habitat of this species in terms of loCation, elevation, and vegetation type. These locations are leased to various lessees for grazing and for oil and gas. Remuda Basin T238 R29E Sec 24, 25, 36 T238 R308 Sec 19, 30, 31 Livingston Ridge T228 RBOE Sec 32 Yeso Hills T268 R24E Sec 36 South fork of Hay Hollow T268 RZSE Sec 32 T268 RZSE Sec 11, 16 Upper Ben Slaughter Draw T258 RZSE Sec 32 Chosa Draw T268 R2SE Sec 2 Cottonwood Draw T258 R25E Sec 36 T258 R26E Sec 32 Red Bluff Draw (where gypseous) T258 R28E T258 R27E Dog Canyon Draw Clayton Basin T168 R27E Sec 33, 34, 36, 25 T208 RBOE Sec l7, 18,19,20,30 T178 R27E Sec 5 Ishee Lake Seven Rivers T158 R28E Sec 34, 35 T218 R23E Sec 2 R24E Sec 7 (must see) Hart Canyon T178 R27E Sec these sections of state trust land were searched on March 20 through 24, 1995 and the Species of concern was not found on any of these sections. At the present time, the only plants of this species which occur on state trust land are the previously known populations at Ben Slaughter Draw (T268, R25E, Sec. 16) and Black River (T258, R26E, Sec. 2). HIGHEST AND BEST USES: The highest and best use of these gypsum lands is: 1. oil and gas development 2. grazing 3. mining (potential) REMARKS: Economic Consequences: Extending protection of the Endangered Species Act (state and federal) to this species on state trust land results in virtually no economic consequences to the oil and gas industry, the cattle industry, or to mining for the following reasons: 1. Oil and Gas Industry: Oil and gas development do not necessarily have a negative impact on this species, however, access roads, well pads, pipeline rights of way, and seismic mapping should avoid direct impacts to these plants by simply going around the populations not on top of or through them. The application of herbicides for weed control should also avoid direct impact to these plants or indirect impact by spray drift or runoff. Avoiding negative impacts to these populations on state trust land is not a matter of law unless federal permits or federal funds are involved in the permitted activities. However, the economic consequences to the oil and gas industry of protecting this plant should be nearly nil so long as advance planning for the location of structures, roads, etc. is carried out prior to beginning ground disturbing activities. Permits for slant drilling or for exceptions in) well locations will need tx> be obtained in advance and will result in minor administrative costs to the lessee. Since protecting this plant on state trust land results in almost no economic consequences to the oil and gas industry there is little economic reason not to protect it. 2. Grazing: Cattle do not eat this plant (it is too small), they do however trample it. The gypsum balds on which this plant grows provide little forage for cattle and they C?rectly impact the plant only by walking through the area on their way to water or better forage resulting in light to moderate impact by trampling. Heavy impact from cattle results only in those areas where cattle congregate because water is available such as at Ben Slaughter Draw. Impacts by cattle are minimal where water is lacking. The principal effect of heavy impact by cattle on this plant is a demographic change where the pepulation shifts to large numbers of seedling and juvenile plants and few large old plants (Figure 15 from Knight, 1993). Under light to moderate impact by cattle the age structure of the population is normally distributed. There is little reason to exclude cattle from these populations, however, watering and feeding stations should not be located in the 3. middle of these populations. Another potential direct threat to this species is the application of herbicides to control woody shrubs on grazing lands and to control noxious weeds. This is unlikely to occur since the gypsum substrate imposes stringent selection against most woody plants and all noxious weeds. However, the gypsum outcrops occur in a matrix of "normal" vegetation which may in fact have herbicides applied to it. Applications of herbicides in this area should avoid direct or indirect impact to this species and should use herbicides which do not affect it. Since protecting this species on state trust land results in almost no economic consequences to the cattle industry there is little reason not to protect it. Mining: Mining is the principal known threat to this species because it occurs on.a commercially valuable resource, gypsum, which can be mined to provide revenues to the trust. No way to avoid the direct impact of strip mining on this plant has been found. However, the gypsum deposits of this region are inferior in quality to other deposits and it is unlikely that this resource will be mined in the near future. Exploration for sulfur has occurred in this area but commercially exploitable deposits were not found. Full protection of this species could be obtained.by withdrawing the mineral estate of the 23 acres on which. it occurs at each site from any possibility of strip mining in the future. The fair market value of the gypsum resource under current economic conditions is zero because the purity of the hydrous gypsum in the Yeso Hills is far below the standards currently required by any of the gypsum mining operations in New Mexico. Since protecting this species (x1 state trust land results no economic consequences to the mining industry there is little reason not to protect it. Biological Consequences: Biological consequences of not protecting this Species are the possible loss of one of only three populations (Black River). The biological consequences of attempting to protect the plant by excluding cattle and all other surface disturbing activities may be the loss of all of the populations through failure to reproduce ~??llwaremwseed; ma fact require some degree of disturbance in order to use from seed. Seed germination and seedling 'shment is abundant in: areas to 'moderately by cattle or vehicular traffic where the surface cru the gypsum is broken. Breaking the crust apparently pr vides afe sites for germination and a favorable moisture ime for seedling establishment. Where cattle and CRY traffic have been excluded at Seven Rivers and the gypsum is successfully from seed. 1. This plant may require disturbance. Gypsum wild?buckwheat is not critically sensitive to ground disturbing activities and may in fact require some degree of disturbance in order to reproduce from seed. Seed germination and seedling establishment is; abundant jJ1 areas in) moderately disturbed by cattle or vehicular traffic where the surface crust of the gypsum is broken. Breaking the crust apparently provides safe sites for germination and a favorable moisture regime for seedling establishment. Where cattle and ORV traffic have been excluded at Seven Rivers and the gypsum is crusted over the germination and establishment of seedlings is minimal. 2. Habitat fragmentation. Failure to protect this species on state trust land at the Black River population has the potential to seriously fragment the population and restrict gene flow with possible long term biological consequences. The state land occurs in the middle of this population (Figure 21 from Knight, 1993). If this plant were to be eliminated from the state section (unlikely but possible) the remaining plants would be fragmented into two small islands of about 28 acres each. This may be telow the threshold c?f genetic viability for this species but no data are available. Thus it is theoretically possible that this population could be lost, leaving only two viable populations, Ben Slaughter Draw and Seven Rivers. The state trust land at Ben Slaughter Draw occurs at the eastern end of the population (Figure 20 from Knight, 1993). Loss of these plants would not fragment the remaining population but would reduce its extent by 23 acres, from 288 acres to 265 acres. There is no state land at the Seven Rivers site where the entire population of 109 acres is federal land. Political Consequences: It is unfortunate that the federal and state Endangered Species Acts have been abused by organizations with hidden agendas in order to further their own causes at the expense of the very biological resources which. the Acts are intended to protect. Extremists on both sides of the issue, environmentalists on one hand and cattlemen, loggers, and miners on the other, are all at fault here. Media attention is given to polarization of the issue and the truth is sacrificed for sound bytes. The issue should be the protection of our biological resources as opposed to using the act in order to call a halt to economic growth and development, or using the act in cmder to pmomote private property issues and states? rights. The issue of protecting gypsum wild?buckwheat on state trust land is a microcosm of the greater issues. The Commissioner ought to protect this resource and preserve biodiversity on the trust simply because it is the right thing to do and because preserving the corpus of the trust is one of the central mandates of the trust. However, the oil and gas industry is sensitized to these issues and they appear to be skittish and frightened that their industry' will be shut down to protect some weed. This is eSpecially true in the wake of the dunes sagebrush lizard fiasco in 1994. Even the gathering of information appears to be suspect because it might be used against them in an attitude of "what we don?t know can?t hurt us." Since oil and gas has enormous clout the problem becomes complex and delicate rather than simple and straightforward. The best policy here may be to protect species on a case by case basis once it can be shown what the economic, biological, and political consequences may be for each species. In other words, do not issue blanket statements protecting all listed taxa on state trust lands. Give them protection one species at a time, case by case, as we obtain enough accurate information to justify our position. This approach should allay the fears of the oil and gas industry. So far as the environmental vote is concerned giving protection to one species should be popular, but may be criticized since all species are not protected. Still, giving one species protection should help to de?fuse that criticism and help win over the environmental vote. This approach may be the win/win position we need in order to protect the biological resources while maintaining economic activity on state trust lands. It is important to note that gypsum wild?buckwheat is the only listed plant species in New Mexico with a detailed and comprehensive report (Knight, 1993) which. pinpoints the exact locations of the populations on state trust land. This report is the culmination. of 'years of inventory' Iby numerous individuals over a period of many years. Inventory and mapping of all of the remaining endangered plant species on state trust lands is; a critical first step :hl avoidance (IE negative impacts to their populations. Monitoring is an essential second step to help determine the nature and degree of any threats to the taxa. This information is essential to the intelligent management of biological resources on state trust lands. The application of Geographic Information Systems and GAP analysis to the problem of inventory of trust lands will be a major factor in speeding up the process and maintaining a viable data base. Reference: Knight, P.J. 1993. A. Status IReview (n3 Gypsunl Wild. Buckwheat. Prepared for ULS. Fish and Wildlife Service by Nbrron Taschek Knight, Inc., 2615 Rio Rancho Blvd. Corrales, NM 87048