[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54791-54808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27924]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD36
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Nine Plants From the Grasslands or Mesic Areas of
the Central Coast of California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines
endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) for nine plants: Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
(Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus (Clara Hunt's milk-vetch),
Carex albida (white sedge), Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia),
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys
strictus (Calistoga allocarya), Poa napensis (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea
oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood Marsh checker-mallow), and Trifolium
amoenum (showy Indian clover). These nine species grow in a variety of
habitats including valley grasslands, meadows, freshwater marshes,
seeps, and blue oak woodlands in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties on
the central coast of California. Habitat loss and degradation,
competition from invasive plant species, elimination through plant
community succession, trampling and herbivory by livestock and
wildlife, collection for horticultural use, and hydrological
alterations to wetland areas threaten the continued existence of these
plants. This rule implements Federal protection and recovery provisions
afforded by the Act for these nine species.
DATES: Effective November 21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Sacramento Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino
Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Elam or David Wright, Sacramento
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile
916/979-2128).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Populations of the nine plant species in this rule are found in
Sonoma, Marin, and Napa Counties, California. Astragalus clarianus
(Clara Hunt's milk-vetch), Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga
allocarya), and Poa napensis (Napa bluegrass) are found up to 70
kilometers (km) (32 miles (mi)) inland in a variety of habitats near
the City of Calistoga in the Napa Valley, California. Alopecurus
aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus), Carex albida (white
sedge), Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium pardalinum ssp.
pitkinense (Pitkin Marsh lily), Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood
Marsh checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum
[[Page 54792]]
(showy Indian clover) are found in mesic areas mostly within 33 km (15
mi) of the central coast of California. Urbanization, road
construction, airport construction, development of hot springs into
commercial resorts, agricultural land conversion, hydrological
alteration of wetlands, waste disposal, competition with invasive plant
species, collection for horticultural use, or livestock grazing have
eliminated or adversely impacted much of the habitat and have
extirpated numerous populations of these plant species. Historically,
these species have not been known to occur outside of Alameda, Marin,
Mendocino, Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Willis Jepson (1925a) first described Astragalus clarianus in 1909
from specimens collected by Clara Hunt in the Conn Valley near St.
Helena, Napa County, California. Axel Rydberg (1929) and Jepson (1936)
later treated this taxon as Hamosa clariana and Astragalus rattani var.
clarianus, respectively. Rupert Barneby (1950) reestablished Astragalus
clarianus as a full species, a treatment retained by Spellenberg
(1993). Astragalus clarianus is a low-growing annual herb in the pea
family (Fabaceae). It is a slender, sparsely leafed plant, sparingly
covered with sharp, stiff, appressed hairs. The simple single or few
basally branching, stems ascend 7 to 20 centimeters (cm) (3 to 8 inches
(in)) in height. The leaves are alternate, 1.5 to 6.0 cm (0.5 to 2.5
in) long, with 5 to 9 uncrowded leaflets 2 to 10 millimeters (mm) (0.1
to 0.4 in) long. The leaflets are oblong to obovate, narrow at the
base, and notched at the tip. Small flowers appear from March through
April. The petals are bicolored, with the wings whitish and the banner
and keel purple in the upper third. The keel is longer and wider than
the wings. The horizontal to declining seed pods are narrow, linear,
slightly curved, pointed at both ends, and are borne on a 1.5 to 2.5 mm
(0.06 to 0.10 in) long slender stalk. Astragalus rattanii var.
jepsonianus resembles A. clarianus, but grows 10 to 36 cm (4 to 14 in)
tall, has larger flowers, and has seed pods that are not elevated on a
stalk.
Astragalus clarianus is found on thin, rocky clay soils derived
from volcanic or serpentine substrates (Joe Callizo, California Native
Plant Society (CNPS), in litt. 1996; Jake Ruygt, CNPS, Napa Valley
Chapter, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing transcript) in grasslands and
openings in whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita)-blue oak
(Quercus douglasii) woodlands (Liston 1990) over an elevation range of
75 to 225 meters (m) (240 to 840 feet (ft)). Six historical occurrences
were known from Napa and Sonoma counties. Two of these occurrences were
extirpated by urbanization and viticulture (California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1996). Of the remaining four occurrences,
three are found in northwestern Napa County and one occurs in adjacent
Sonoma County. These four disjunct occurrences are restricted to about
28 hectares (ha) (70 acres (ac)) (CNDDB 1996). The trend for Clara
Hunt's milk-vetch is one of decline as a result of habitat destruction
and modification (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1991).
Extant populations of A. clarianus are variously threatened by
urbanization, recreational activities, airport maintenance, elimination
due to plant community succession, competition from invasive weeds, a
proposed water storage project, and random events. Populations occur on
private, State, and municipal land.
Edward Greene (1892) and Jepson (Abrams ex Jepson 1951) treated
Plagiobothrys strictus as Allocarya stricta and Allocarya californica
var. stricta, respectively, before Ivan Johnston (1923) assigned the
name, Plagiobothrys strictus, to specimens collected on alkaline flats
near sulphur springs at Calistoga, Napa County, California. This
treatment was retained by Messick (1993). Plagiobothrys strictus is a
small, erect, annual herb belonging to the borage family
(Boraginaceae). It grows 1 to 4 decimeters (dm) (4 to 15 in) in height.
The nearly hairless plant has either a single stem or branches from
near the base. The linear lower leaves are 4 to 9 cm (1.5 to 4 in)
long. Small, usually paired, white flowers appear in March to April in
a slender, unbranched inflorescence. The fruit is an egg-shaped nutlet
about 1.5 mm (0.6 in) long, keeled on the back, with wart-like
projections without any prickles. Plagiobothrys greenei, P.
lithocaryus, P. mollis var. vestitus, P. stipitatus, and P. tener have
ranges that overlap with that of Plagiobothrys strictus and occur in
similar habitats, but they do not resemble P. strictus and have not
been found at the known P. strictus sites (J. Callizo, in litt. 1996).
Plagiobothrys strictus is found in pools and swales adjacent to and
fed by hot springs and small geysers in grasslands within an elevation
range of 90 to 160 m (300 to 500 ft). Three historical populations
occurred within a 3 km (2 mi) radius of Calistoga, Napa County,
California. One population was extirpated by urbanization and
agricultural land conversion. Of the two remaining populations of P.
strictus, one occurs near a geyser and some undeveloped thermal hot
springs while the other occurs at the airport in the city of Calistoga.
The combined area of the two remaining populations is less than 80
square meters (m2) (900 square feet (ft2)) (CNPS
1990). The overall trend for Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys
strictus) is one of decline (CDFG 1991). The species is threatened by
recreational activities, airport maintenance, urbanization, and random
events. Both populations are on private land and neither is protected.
Alan Beetle first described Poa napensis in 1946 from specimens
that he collected in a meadow moistened by seepage from hot springs, 3
km (2 mi) north of Calistoga at Myrtledale Hot Springs, Napa County,
California. This treatment was retained by Soreng (1993). Poa napensis
is an erect, tufted perennial bunchgrass in the grass family (Poaceae)
that grows to 1 dm (4 in) in height. Leaves are folded, stiffly erect,
1 mm (0.04 in) wide, with the basal leaves 20 cm (8 in) long and upper
stem leaves to 15 cm (6 in) in length. A few stiff, erect flowering
stems appear in May and grow 7 dm (27 in) in height. Flower clusters
occur as a pale green to purple, condensed, oblong-oval panicle 10 to
15 cm (4 to 6 in) long and 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2.0 in) wide. Poa napensis
most closely resembles P. unilateralis (ocean bluff bluegrass), but
differs in leaf and panicle form and habitat.
Poa napensis is found in grasslands and moist, alkaline meadows fed
by hot springs. The elevation range of this plant is 100 to 120 m (340
to 400 ft) within a radius of 6 km (4 mi) of Calistoga. Historically,
the range of this plant has been diminished by the development of
recreational hot springs and the growth of the town of Calistoga. Only
two populations of the species are known to exist, one near Myrtledale
Hot Springs which is restricted to a 100 m2 (1,100
ft2) area, and a second smaller population of 100 plants
nearby (CDFG 1979). Both populations of P. napensis depend on moisture
from adjacent hot springs or surface runoff. Any action that would
alter the hydrology or flow from these hot springs would be detrimental
to these populations (CDFG 1979). The trend for Napa bluegrass is one
of decline (CDFG 1991). Poa napensis is threatened by recreational
activities, airport maintenance, urbanization, and random events (CNPS
1987, 1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). Both
extant populations are located on private land and are not protected.
Peter Rubtzoff (1961) described Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
based on a specimen collected in 1955
[[Page 54793]]
in Guerneville Marsh, Sonoma County, California. Specimens assignable
to this taxon were collected as early as 1880 in Sonoma and Marin
counties, but had been identified as Alopecurus aequalis Sobol., a
circumboreal foxtail grass found as far south as adjacent Mendocino
County. These specimens, however, deviated considerably from typical A.
aequalis and were identified by Rubtzoff as A. aequalis var.
sonomensis. Although William Crins (1993) only referred to this variety
in passing in a discussion of the species, its varietal status
adequately reflects its morphological and ecological attributes and it
is considered to be a distinct variety (William Crins, Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources, in litt. 1993).
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is a tufted perennial in the
grass family (Poaceae) that reaches 30 to 75 cm (12 to 30 in) in
height. The stems are mostly erect and either straight or weakly bent
near the base. The leaf blades are up to 7.5 mm (0.3 in) wide. The
panicle is 2.5 to 9.0 cm (1.0 to 3.5 in) long and 4 to 8 mm (0.1 to 0.3
in) wide. The spikelets are usually tinged violet-gray near the tip.
The awn (bristlelike part) is straight, and exceeds the lemma body by
1.0 to 2.5 mm (0.04 to 0.1 in). This variety is distinguished from A.
aequalis var. aequalis by its more robust, upright appearance,
generally wider panicle, violet-gray tinged spikelets, and longer awn
(Rubtzoff 1961; William Crins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
in litt. 1993).
When the proposed rule was written, Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis was known from five natural populations. Three of the sites,
in Sonoma County, were privately owned, and two sites were on Federal
land within Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) in Marin County (CNDDB
1993; Virginia Norris, CNPS, Marin Chapter, in litt. 1993). Three more
natural sites in Marin County have since been identified. Two are on
Federal land within PRNS, and the third is a private inholding within
the PRNS (CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; Robert Soost, CNPS,
Marin Chapter, in litt. 1996). One of the newly discovered populations
was initially thought to be the result of seeds washed down from a
reintroduced population, but it is now considered a natural population
(V. Norris, in litt. 1995). All populations occur in moist soils in
permanent freshwater marshes between 6 and 210 m (20 and 680 ft) in
elevation.
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis was known historically from 16
populations. The historical range of the taxon was approximately 48 km
(30 mi), extending north from Point Reyes Peninsula to Guerneville and
east to Cunningham. Although fewer sites are now present, the range of
the species has changed little. The numbers of populations of this
species are declining due to competition from invasive plant species,
trampling and grazing by cattle, and low reproductive success. Three
attempts to reintroduce the species in the PRNS have failed (CNDDB
1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995). The proposed rule, published August 2,
1995 (60 FR 39314), stated that one attempt was destroyed by a flash
flood in 1993. It is now thought that the affected population was a
natural population and not a reintroduction. This population
reestablished and contained 15 plants in 1994 and 13 in 1995 (V.
Norris, in litt. 1995).
The number of individuals in populations of Alopecurus aequalis
var. sonomensis may fluctuate markedly between years. The largest
population recorded in recent years was about 600 plants in 1995; this
population dropped to about 100 plants in 1996 (V. Norris, in litt.
1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996). A population in Sonoma County reported
to have 150 individuals in 1987 had dropped to only 4 plants by 1994
(V. Norris, in litt. 1995). Most often, populations of A. aequalis ssp.
sonomensis have about 100 or fewer individuals (CNDDB 1996).
Liberty Bailey (1889) described Carex albida based on a specimen
collected by John Bigelow in 1854 on Santa Rosa Creek, Sonoma County,
California. Specimens of the plant collected by John T. Howell and John
W. Stacey in 1937 were described as C. sonomensis (Stacey 1937), but
Howell (1957) later stated that the type specimen of C. albida had been
misinterpreted by Stacey and others and that C. sonomensis is a synonym
of C. albida. Howell's interpretation continues to be accepted
(Mastrogiuseppe 1993).
Carex albida is a loosely tufted perennial herb in the sedge family
(Cyperaceae). The stems are triangular, 4 to 6 dm (1.3 to 2.0 ft) tall,
erect, and longer than the leaves. The leaves are flat and 3 to 5 cm (1
to 2 in) wide with closed sheaths. The inflorescence consists of 4 to 7
ovoid or obovoid to oblong spikelets 8 to 18 mm (0.3 to 0.7 in) long.
The achenes (fruits) are three-sided when mature. The sacs (perigynia)
surrounding the achenes are light green to yellow-green when mature and
3.0 to 4.5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long. Several traits distinguish C.
albida from other closely related sedges. Carex albida has
inflorescences with staminate flowers above the pistillate flowers,
especially on the terminal inflorescence, lateral spikelets, and leaves
that are shorter than the stems and 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) wide.
Some individuals of Carex lemmonii resemble C. albida, but differ in
perigynia and fruit size, or in other respects.
Carex albida was thought to be extinct but is now known from a
single population discovered in 1987. Carex albida was known
historically from four other locations including the type locality on
Santa Rosa Creek and three additional populations in two marshes, all
in Sonoma County. The marsh containing C. albida at the Santa Rosa
Creek site was destroyed in the 1960's by channelization and other
alterations to Santa Rosa Creek (Betty Guggolz, CNPS, Milo Baker
Chapter, in litt. 1993). A second marsh has been used for cannery waste
disposal since 1971, causing the probable loss of the population (CNDDB
1996). At the third marsh, one of the two historical populations has
not been seen since 1951. Access to the other population has been
denied by the landowner, and the presence of the plant has not been
confirmed since 1976. This marsh has become drier in recent years
because the addition of wells and other construction has altered the
marsh hydrology, and it likely no longer supports the species (B.
Guggolz, in litt. 1993).
The only extant population of C. albida is found in a sphagnum bog,
between 45 and 60 m (150 and 200 ft) in elevation. The population
contains about 1,000 plants and occurs on private property in Sonoma
County (CDFG 1993a, CNDDB 1996). Carex albida is threatened by
potential alteration of hydrology from changes in land use or potential
disturbance from a proposed wastewater treatment project, competition
from invasive species, potential disturbance from repair or alteration
of a nearby state highway, and random events.
F. Harlan Lewis and Margaret Lewis (1953) described Clarkia
imbricata from specimens they collected on July 10, 1951, along Vine
Hill Road, Sonoma County. This treatment continues to be accepted
(Lewis 1993). Clarkia imbricata is an erect, annual herb in the
evening-primrose family (Onagraceae). The stems grow to 6 dm (2.5 ft)
tall, unbranched or with numerous short branches in the upper parts.
This plant is densely leafy, with entire, lanceolate leaves 2.0 to 2.5
cm (0.8 to 1.0 in) long and 4 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in) broad that are
ascending and overlapping. The showy inflorescences appear from June
through July. The flowers are grouped closely together and each flower
has a conspicuous funnel-shaped tube at its base. Each flower has four
fan-shaped, lavender petals 2.0 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1.0
[[Page 54794]]
in) long with a V-shaped purple spot extending from the middle to the
upper margin of the petal. Clarkia purpurea ssp. viminea is the only
other Clarkia taxon with which C. imbricata can be confused. Clarkia
purpurea ssp. viminea has a much shorter, funnel-shaped tube and does
not have the relatively broad, ascending, overlapping leaves of C.
imbricata.
Clarkia imbricata has never been known to be common. Unsuccessful
searches for this plant at its type locality have been made since 1974
(B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). This taxon is only known from two
populations, one natural and one planted in a preserve, found in sandy
grasslands in Sonoma County. The natural population was the source for
cuttings that were transplanted into the 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) preserve in
1974. The two populations are 1.2 km (0.75 mi) apart, have an elevation
range of 60 to 75 m (200 to 250 ft), and occur on private land. The
natural population contains 2,000 to 5,000 plants and occurs on an
open, flat grassland surrounded by a variety of introduced trees and
shrubs. The planted population, located in a preserve owned and managed
by the CNPS, has fluctuated between 200 and 300 plants. Plants have
recently expanded onto an adjacent parcel of private land to the east,
where 70 to 100 plants were found in 1993. The planted population is
threatened by damage associated with trespassers collecting other rare
plants found in the preserve, while the natural population is at risk
due to proposed land use conversion (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). Both
populations are also susceptible to adverse impacts from random events.
Lawrence Beane and Albert M. Vollmer first collected Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense on July 20, 1954, in Sonoma County,
California. Beane (1955) described the plant as Lilium pitkinense. Mark
Skinner (1993) subsequently treated the plant as a subspecies of L.
pardalinum.
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is an herbaceous, rhizomatous
(underground stem) perennial in the lily family (Liliaceae). The
slender, erect stems reach 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) in height. Leaves are
yellow-green, up to 14 cm (5.5 in) long, and 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in)
wide. The leaves are generally scattered along the stem, but in some
plants occur in 2 or 3 whorls of 3 to 6 leaves near the middle of the
stem. The inflorescence is a terminal raceme. The flowers are large,
showy, and nodding. The petals, which are reflexed from the middle, are
red at the outer edge changing to yellow at the center with small, deep
maroon dots mostly within the yellow zone. Anthers (pollen-bearing part
of the stamen) are purple-brown. The fruit is an elliptical capsule
containing many rounded seeds (CDFG 1993b). The species flowers from
June to July. Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is distinguished from
L. pardalinum ssp. pardalinum by generally shorter petals and anthers.
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense grows only in permanently
saturated, sandy soils in freshwater marshes and wet meadows that are
35 to 60 m (115 to 200 ft) in elevation. Only three populations of L.
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense at two sites were recorded historically. All
three populations are on private land within a distance of 13 km (8 mi)
in Sonoma County. Access to one of the sites has been denied by the
landowner since 1975 (CNPS 1988a). As a result, the status of this
population has not been confirmed, but it is presumed to be extant. Two
populations occur at a second site. The size of these populations has
declined due to loss of habitat from urbanization and competition with
blackberries (Rubus spp.) (CDFG 1993b). About 300 individual plants
remain on these two sites (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Collection of
plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural use, competition from
invasive plant species, potential disturbance from a proposed
subdivision, trampling and herbivory by livestock and wildlife and
random events threaten this species (Lynn Lozier, The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), in litt. 1990; CDFG 1993b; B. Guggolz, pers. comm.
1993, 1996).
Edward L. Greene (1897) first described Sidalcea oregana ssp.
valida in June, 1894, based on material he collected from Knight's
Valley, Sonoma County, California. Since then, this taxon has been
known as S. maxima (Baker), S. oregana var. spicata (Jepson), S. eximia
(Baker) and S. spicata ssp. valida (Wiggins) (CNPS 1988b). C. L.
Hitchcock (1957) studied the genus Sidalcea and recognized four
subspecies, including S. oregana ssp. valida, a treatment accepted by
Steven Hill (1993).
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is a perennial herb in the mallow
family (Malvaceae). The plants are 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) tall. The
leaves are rounded. Lower leaves have 5 to 7 shallow lobes; upper
leaves are generally smaller and divided into 3 to 5 entire, lanceolate
segments. The compound inflorescence consists of densely flowered,
spike-like racemes 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2.0 in) long. Petals are 1.0 to
1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 in) long, notched at the apex, and deep pink-mauve.
The flowers appear from late June to September. Sidalcea oregana ssp.
valida differs from S. oregana ssp. eximia in having a hairless calyx.
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida has never been recorded as abundant
and only two occurrences are known. These occurrences are about 29 km
(18 mi) apart in Sonoma County, California. Both are on private land.
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida inhabits freshwater marshes approximately
150 m (490 ft) in elevation. One population covers less than 0.1 ha
(0.25 ac), and was reported to have fewer than 100 plants in 1979 (CDFG
1987) and approximately 60 plants in 1993 (Nick Wilcox, State Water
Resources Control Board, pers. comm. 1993). The other population
contained approximately 70 individuals in 1993 (Ann Howald, CDFG, pers.
comm. 1993). Both populations are adversely affected by trampling and
reduced seed set resulting from cattle grazing (CNPS 1988b). The
potential alteration of the hydrology of one site due to urbanization
and water withdrawal poses a threat to the species (A. Howald, pers.
comm. 1993). The plants may also suffer from competition by common tule
(Scirpus acutus) and yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and
from periodic maintenance of a local aqueduct located in the marsh (A.
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). This species is also susceptible to adverse
impacts from random events.
Edward L. Greene (1891) described Trifolium amoenum from specimens
that he collected near Vanden, Solano County, California, in 1890. This
treatment was retained by Duane Isely (1993). Historically, this
species has been found in a variety of habitats including low, wet
swales, grasslands, and grassy hillsides up to 310 m (1,020 ft) in
elevation. This annual plant, which is a member of the pea family
(Fabaceae), is hairy, erect, and grows to 1 to 6 dm (4 to 27 in) in
height. The leaves are pinnately compound, widely obovate, and 2 to 3
cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long. The flowers, which are purple with white tips,
are 12 to 16 mm (0.5 to 0.6 in) long and occur in dense, round or ovoid
heads, 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long. Flowers appear from April to
June. Trifolium amoenum is similar in appearance to T. macraei, but is
generally larger and the flowers lack subtending bracts.
The historical range of Trifolium amoenum was from the western edge
of the Sacramento Valley in Solano County, west and north to Marin and
Sonoma counties, where many sites were presumed extirpated by urban and
agricultural development (CNPS 1977). Until 1993, Trifolium amoenum was
considered extinct. However, one
[[Page 54795]]
locality was discovered in 1993 and a second in 1996. In 1993, Peter
Connors, Bodega Marine Laboratory, discovered a single Trifolium
amoenum plant in Sonoma County. The land on which this plant was found
is private (CNDDB 1996), and at the time of writing of the proposed
rule the land was for sale (Peter Connors, Bodega Marine Laboratory,
pers. comm. 1994). No plants were found at the site in 1994 or 1995,
and the site has now been developed (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1996). The
only known extant population of T. amoenum is that found in 1996. This
population consists of about 200 plants growing on two residential lots
in Marin County. One lot has a house on it, and a house is being built
on the other; both landowners are currently cooperating in the
conservation of the species on their property (P. Connors, pers. comm.
1996).
In 1994, Dr. Connors grew 18 plants in cultivation from seed
produced by the single plant found in 1993 (Connors 1994). These plants
were grown to produce seed for later reintroduction efforts (P.
Connors, pers. comm. 1994); the seed is expected to be viable for
decades (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1996). Should additional T. amoenum be
found, these populations would likely be threatened by urbanization,
competition with invasive plants, land conversion to agriculture,
livestock grazing, and random events.
Previous Federal Action
Federal government actions on these nine species began as a result
of section 12 of the Act which directed the Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered
to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This
report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to
Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Astragalus clarianus, Carex
albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (as L.
pitkinense), Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Trifolium
amoenum as endangered and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida as threatened.
The Service published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register
(40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian
Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2)
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and
of its intent to review the status of the plant taxa named therein. The
above eight taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice. On June 16,
1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register (41 FR
24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be
endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list of 1,700
plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and data received by
the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House
Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication.
Astragalus clarianus, Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, and Trifolium amoenum were
included in the June 16, 1976, Federal Register document.
General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR
17909). The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all
proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was
given to those proposals already more than 2 years old. In the December
10, 1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796), the Service published a
notice of withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, proposal, along with four
other proposals that had expired.
The Service published a Notice of Review for plants in the Federal
Register on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, Carex
albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and
Trifolium amoenum as a Candidate species. On November 28, 1983, the
Service published a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640).
This supplement changed Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus
clarianus, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp.
valida, and Trifolium amoenum to category 2. At that time, category 2
taxa were those being considered for possible addition to the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Designation of category 2
species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, Federal Register
notice (61 FR 7596).
The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526). The candidate status of eight of the plant species remained
unchanged in this notice. Trifolium amoenum was indicated as being
possibly extinct. Another revision of the plant notice was published on
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision, Astragalus clarianus,
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
were designated as Candidates. The Service made no changes to the
status of any of the nine species in the plant notice published on
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). The Service approved Candidate status
for Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis on August 26, 1993. However,
the status change was inadvertently not published in the plant notice
published on September 30, 1993. After the publication of that notice,
the Service received information that Trifolium amoenum had been
rediscovered (Connors 1994).
In the August 2, 1995, Federal Register, the Service published a
proposed rule to list the nine plant species as endangered, and invited
public comment (60 FR 39314). Processing of the proposed rule was
delayed by a congressional moratorium on activities associated with
final listings from April 10, 1995, through April 26, 1996. After the
moratorium was lifted, the Service reopened the comment period and
scheduled a public hearing on September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47856).
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make
findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their receipt.
Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that all
petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been newly
submitted on that date. This was the case for Astragalus clarianus,
Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and
Trifolium amoenum because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted
as a petition. The Service found that the petitioned listing of those
eight species was warranted but precluded by other higher priority
listing actions. This finding was reviewed annually in October from
1983 through 1994. Publication of the proposed rule on August 2, 1995
(60 FR 39314), constituted the final finding for the petitioned action
for these species.
The processing of this final listing rule conforms with the
Service's final listing priority guidance made final on December 5,
1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the order in which the
Service will process rulemakings following two related events, the
lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed
on April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6) and the restoration of significant
funding for listing through passage of the omnibus budget
reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe funding
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest
priority to handling
[[Page 54796]]
emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest priority (Tier 2) to
resolving the status of proposed listings. A lower priority is assigned
to resolving the conservation status of candidate species and
processing administrative findings on petitions to add species to the
lists or reclassify species from threatened to endangered status (Tier
3). The lowest priority actions are in Tier 4, a category which
includes processing critical habitat determinations, delistings, or
other types of reclassifications. Processing of this final rule is Tier
2 action.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the August 2, 1995, proposed rule and associated notifications,
all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or
information that would contribute to the development of a final
determination on the proposed listing. A 65-day comment period closed
on October 9, 1995. Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county and
city governments, scientists, and interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. The Service published notices in the Marin
Independent Journal, Mill Valley Pacific Sun, Santa Rosa Press
Democrat, Ross Valley Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle and San
Francisco Examiner on August 9, 1995, in the Napa Register on August
10, 1995, and in the Napa County Record and Petaluma Argus-Courier on
August 11, 1995, inviting general public comment. In response to the
publication of the proposed rule, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Santa
Rosa, California, requested a public hearing in one of 2 letters each
dated August 28, 1995.
Following the lifting of the listing moratorium, the comment period
was reopened on September 11, 1996, for 35 days, closing on October 15,
1996. Upon the reopening of the comment period, the Service again
contacted interested parties, and published notices--in the Petaluma
Argus-Courier on September 17, 1996, in the Marin Scope and Mill Valley
Pacific Sun on September 18, 1996, and in the Marin Independent
Journal, Napa Register, and Santa Rosa Press Democrat on September 19,
1996--inviting general public comment and announcing the scheduling of
a public hearing. A public hearing was held at the Best Western Novato
Oaks Inn in Novato, California, on October 3, 1996. The hearing was
attended by approximately 20 people, of whom nine presented oral or
written testimony.
In accordance with Service peer review policy published on July 1,
1994, (59 FR 34270), the Service sent copies of the proposed rule to
one ecologist who works for a university, two plant ecologists who work
for State agencies, eight university professors who are species
experts, and six other species experts. The Service received one
response, from a species expert. The comments received in this response
did not contain any new information substantive to the listing
determination. The remaining reviewers did not respond to the Service.
In total, 24 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comments,
including the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the Marin and the Sonoma County
Farm Bureaus, the California Cattlemen's Association, and the
Washington Legal Foundation. Several individuals commented more than
once. Nine commenters supported the proposed action, eight opposed it
or expressed reservations, and seven did not state a position. Several
commenters provided corrections or updated information regarding one or
more of the species proposed for listing. The Service has incorporated
into the final rule any verifiable new information that is substantive
to the listing decision.
Written comments and oral statements presented at the public
hearing and received during the comment periods are addressed in the
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together
into general issues. These issues and the Service's responses are
presented below.
Issue 1: Several commenters expressed concern that listing the
plants would adversely affect the economies of Marin, Sonoma, and Napa
counties, or requested the Service to consider possible economic
impacts.
Service Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A), a listing determination
must be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available. The legislative history of this provision clearly states the
intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based
solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological
considerations from affecting such decisions,'' H. R. Rep. No. 97-835,
97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). As further stated in the legislative
history, ``Applying economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species
listing process is applying economics to the determinations made under
section 4 of the Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of
the word `solely' in this legislation,'' H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th
Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is precluded from
considering economic impacts in a final decision on a proposed listing,
the Service has not examined such impacts.
Issue 2: One commenter stated that the Service must complete a
Taking Implications Assessment, as directed by Presidential Executive
Order 12630, before issuing a final rule.
Service Response: The Attorney General has issued guidelines to the
Department of the Interior (Department) on implementing Executive Order
12630: Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights. Under these guidelines, a special rule
applies when an agency within the Department is required by law to act
without exercising its usual discretion, that is, to act solely upon
specified criteria that leave the agency no choice. In the present
context, the Service's action might be subject to legal challenge if it
considered or acted upon economic information in reaching a listing
decision.
In such cases, the Attorney General's guidelines state that Taking
Implications Assessments (TIAs) shall be prepared after, rather than
before, the agency makes the decision in which its discretion is
restricted. The purpose of the TIAs in these special circumstances is
to inform policy makers of areas where unavoidable taking exposures
exist. Such TIAs must not be considered in the making of administrative
decisions that must, by law, be made without regard to their economic
impact. In enacting the Act, Congress required that listings be based
solely on scientific and commercial data showing whether or not the
species are in danger of extinction. Thus, by law and by U.S. Attorney
General guidelines, the Service is forbidden to conduct TIAs prior to
listing.
Issue 3: Several commenters expressed concern that farmers and
ranchers would be restricted in their everyday operations by listing of
the nine plant species. One worried that farmers and ranchers would be
subject to criminal prosecution for the accidental taking of these
plants. Another suggested that compensation should be provided for land
taken out of range production.
Service Response: The Act does not restrict the taking of listed
plants due to otherwise lawful private activities on private land.
Listing the nine plants as endangered will not regulate farming or
ranching operations, including cattle grazing, on private land. Other
activities that do not violate the taking prohibitions of section
9(a)(2) of the Act are discussed further under ``Conservation
Measures.''
[[Page 54797]]
Issue 4: Several commenters, including representatives of the
California Cattlemen's Association, Sonoma-Marin Cattlemen's
Association, and the Marin County Farm Bureau, stated that grazing is
likely to be beneficial to the nine plant species, both as a land use
alternative to urbanization and other land uses, and in reducing
competition from other plant species, notably nonnative grasses. One
commenter stated that there is no verifiable evidence of a relationship
between grazing and these plants. Another said that because there is
public debate about the effects of grazing on land and vegetation,
little scientific basis exists for claims that grazing is a threat. One
commenter asserted that the Service has a strong bias against all
grazing.
Service Response: Some degree of grazing by cattle and other
animals is likely to be beneficial to some or all of the nine plant
species addressed in this rule. Evidence that heavy grazing is a threat
to some of the species, however, is discussed under Factor C. The
Service is not opposed to grazing, and maintains that best grazing
management practices are compatible with many natural resource
objectives.
Issue 5: Two commenters believed that listing would allow the
Service or the California Department of Fish and Game to intrude upon
private property to search for the listed plants.
Service Response: Listing will have no such effect. The Act does
not give any person or government agency the right to trespass.
Issue 6: Several commenters requested an extension of the comment
period beyond the second deadline of October 15, 1996. One member of
the Marin County Farm Bureau stated that their organization had not had
adequate time to notify their membership of the public hearing
regarding the proposed rule. Other commenters requested additional
hearings at more convenient places and times.
Service Response: The Service believes that the comment period
provided was adequate. The beginning of this section reviews the
Service's efforts to notify the public of the proposed rule regarding
these nine plants. In addition to publication in the Federal Register
and public notices appearing in several local and regional newspapers,
the Service mailed separate notifications of the public hearing to
species experts, other individuals, and Federal, State, and county
entities, including the Marin County Farm Bureau, on September 17,
1996. The location and time of the public hearing was selected to be
convenient to most citizens living around populations of the proposed
plant species.
Issue 7: One commenter, noting certain errors in the proposed rule
and in a Service press release on the proposed listing, requested an
additional public hearing after corrections had been made.
Service Response: One purpose of the public comment period is to
seek feedback on the accuracy of the information in the proposed rule;
correction of errors in the rule does not mandate the re-opening of
public comment. The inaccurate information in the Service's press
release dealt only with consequences of any listing, not with
information or procedures relevant to this listing determination.
Issue 8: One commenter questioned whether all appropriate public
land has been surveyed for the nine plant species, and whether the
species can truly be listed as threatened by extinction without such
surveys. She requested that the listing decision be postponed and the
comment period be extended until such surveys have been conducted.
Another commenter asserted that the Service lacks data supporting the
likelihood of the purported threats to the species, and that the
Service has discussed threats that do not exist. As examples, the
commenter stated that the water level of Lake Hennessey has not been
raised such that it completely inundates a population of Astragalus
clarianus and that Carex albida is not grazed, yet the Service
considers these threats.
Service Response: The Act requires the Service to reach its
decision based on the best scientific and commercial information
available. The Service believes that botanical study of the appropriate
habitats on public and private lands in Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and nearby
counties has been adequate to show that the nine plants are indeed
extremely rare. The threats to the species discussed under Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species are also based on the best information
available, and are well documented or reasonably foreseeable. With
respect to the assertion that the Service has identified threats that
do not exist, threats, by general definition, are descriptions of
events that have not yet taken place but that are likely to occur in
the foreseeable future.
Issue 9: One commenter argued it would be safer to engage in
conservation actions without listing the nine plants, since listing
could provoke malicious damage.
Service Response: Factor D presents information about the
inadequacy of existing protections for the nine plant species.
Additional protections that they will receive as a result of listing
are discussed under Available Conservation Measures. The Service
believes that listing these nine species as endangered under the Act
will significantly reduce the threats to their continued existence.
Although real, the Service considers the risk of malicious damage to
most of these plants to be relatively small, especially for the species
that are inconspicuous. The degree of risk, however, will increase
significantly if precise maps of the locations of these species were
published. This aspect is discussed further in the Critical Habitat
section.
Issue 10: One commenter asserted that the Service has not given
proper consideration to data provided by ranchers and other landowners,
and that the Service gives much more weight to the information provided
by California Native Plant Society volunteers. He further stated that
references to grazing impacts in reports to the Natural Diversity
Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game are
inaccurate and biased and that the volunteers who submit these reports
lack experience in range management or livestock behavior.
Service Response: The Service considers all information received
from all sources. No group's or individual's information receives
``more weight'' than others. Information received from all sources was
carefully evaluated in accordance with Service policy on information
standards under the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271).
Criteria for what information may be considered are discussed in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, and in the response to Issue
1. The Service has checked all substantive information for accuracy,
and believes that the information included in this rule is reliable and
credible and represents the best scientific and commercial information
available.
Issue 11: One commenter, representing the California Cattlemen's
Association, commented that it is very unlikely that grazing is a
threat to Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, in part because livestock
prefer dry areas to the bogs and marshes in which this plant grows.
Service Response: Although cattle prefer dryer areas, they will
enter and graze such wet areas, especially if forage in the surrounding
dry areas is less attractive. Evidence of cattle and other herbivores
grazing on Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, is discussed under Factor
C.
[[Page 54798]]
Issue 12: One commenter suggested that the nine plants may be
naturally rare, and may nevertheless be thriving.
Service Response: Decisions on listing plants and animals are based
on the threats facing the species. A species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Evidence that the nine plants
are in danger of extinction in all or significant portions of their
ranges is discussed under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.
Issue 13: One commenter noted that the proposed rule claimed that
habitat for Trifolium amoenum has been lost due to livestock grazing
and called for the Service to recognize that livestock grazing does not
permanently alter the landscape.
Service Response: The final rule has been changed to clarify that
proper grazing generally does not cause permanent habitat loss.
Issue 14: Two commenters suggested that the observation in the
proposed rule that a fenced population of Lilium pardalinum ssp.
pitkinense continued to suffer from herbivory demonstrating that
something other than domestic livestock is causing the damage.
Service Response: The Service maintains that domestic livestock as
well as other vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores are capable of
damaging these plants (see Factor C and response to Issue 11).
Issue 15: One commenter said that Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis and Trifolium amoenum might prove to have agricultural
value, since both are palatable to cattle. Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis appears tolerant of some grazing, and T. amoenum might renew
soil fertility and provide valuable forage if it could be grown in
sufficient quantity. The commenter speculated that these species could
be seeded to improve pastures.
Service Response: The Service will evaluate these points as it
plans and implements the recovery of these species.
Issue 16: One commenter argued that passive preservation of
individual species is ecologically unsound and will not ultimately
protect biodiversity.
Service Response: The Service notes that habitat protection helps
conserve other species with similar habitat needs contributing to the
biodiversity of the ecosystem. Some species require active management
and the Service will address this in the recovery plan.
Issue 17: One commenter asserted that policies calling for the
removal of nonnative species are based on outdated science, that
nonnative plants have increased the biodiversity of California's annual
grasslands and that these alien species do not threaten the ecological
community of grasslands.
Service Response: The Service has extensive information and has
received a large number of comments from farmers, ranchers, and
scientists, indicating that competition from invasive plants, mostly of
nonnative origin, has played a major role in the decline of several of
the nine plant species and is a continuing and serious threat to most
of them. This information is summarized under Factor E.
Issue 18: One commenter stated that, under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Service must prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this rule.
Service Response: For the reasons set out in the NEPA section of
this document, the Service has determined that the rules issued under
section 4(a) of the Act do not require the preparation of an EIS.
Courts in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Circuit
1981), held that an EIS is not required for listing under the Act. The
Sixth Circuit decision noted that preparing an EIS on listing actions
does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.
Issue 19: One commenter urged the Service, in the event of listing,
to designate critical habitat for the nine plant species with a
consideration of economic impacts of such designation required by law.
Service Response: The Service has determined that the designation
of critical habitat for these nine plant species is not prudent. Please
refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this rule for a detailed
discussion of the critical habitat determination.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, the Service has determined that Alopecurus aequalis Sobol.
var. sonomensis Rubtzoff (Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus
Jepson (Clara Hunt's milk-vetch), Carex albida Bailey (white sedge),
Clarkia imbricata Lewis and Lewis (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium
pardalinum Kellogg. ssp. pitkinense (Beane and Vollmer) M. Skinner
(Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys strictus (Greene) I.M. Johnston
(Calistoga allocarya), Poa napensis Beetle (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea
oregana (Nutt.) Gray ssp. valida (Greene) C.L. Hitchcock (Kenwood Marsh
checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum Greene (showy Indian clover)
should be classified as endangered species. The Service followed
procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations
implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) in
reaching this determination. A species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to
the nine species are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range. Habitat destruction and
modification due to urbanization, land use changes, or alterations in
hydrology pose the most serious threats to the survival of these nine
plant species.
Astragalus clarianus is known currently from three populations in
Napa County and one population in Sonoma County (CNPS 1989, CNDDB
1996). The four populations face a variety of threats to their
continued existence. One population in Napa County was reduced in size
when the creation of Lake Hennessey in the 1950's inundated much of the
site (L. Lozier, pers. comm. 1993). The City of Napa owns the lake and
uses Lake Hennessey as a water source. Recently, the City of Napa
conducted a feasibility study on the raising in elevation of the dam as
part of a project to increase water storage for the city. This would
have raised the lake level and submerged the remnant population of A.
clarianus (J. Ruygt, CNPS, in litt. 1993). This increased water-storage
project at Lake Hennessey is currently considered too costly (Don
Ridenhour, Public Works Dept., City of Napa, pers. comm. 1993).
However, any future water storage project that would involve increasing
the height of the dam and raising the level of Lake Hennessey would
constitute a threat to the population of A. clarianus that lies along
the lakeshore. In December 1990, this remnant population was nearly
destroyed when dredge spoils from the lake were placed on top of it (A.
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). The City of Napa, in cooperation with CDFG,
removed most of the dredge spoils and fenced the 1 ha (2 ac) area,
placing a gate in the fence for fishing access to the lake. Ground
disturbance caused by dredge spoil removal resulted in proliferation of
invasive weeds that further threaten the site, as discussed below under
Factor E. The population has not recovered well (J. Ruygt, pers. comm.
1996). Eight plants of A. clarianus were counted at this site in 1991,
325 plants in 1992, 156 plants in 1993 (CDFG 1989; J. Ruygt, in litt.
1993), 9 plants in 1994 (CNDDB 1996), and 15 plants in 1996 (J. Ruygt,
pers. comm.
[[Page 54799]]
1996, public hearing transcript). The area remains a favorite fishing
access to the lake and receives significant use by the public (CDFG
1989). The City of Napa has repaired damage to the fence several times
(A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
Another population of Astragalus clarianus occurs in Bothe Napa
Valley State Park. Plant numbers have been reported as 8 plants in
1988, 220 plants in 1992, 101 plants in 1993, and 39 plants in 1996 on
a 1 ha (2 ac) monitoring site (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993, pers. comm.
1996, public hearing transcript). The larger portion of the population
of A. clarianus outside of the monitoring zone occurs sparsely on a 6
ha (15 ac) area. This area has been partially protected by placing
brush piles next to a foot trail to divert people away from the
population (William Grummer, Bothe Napa Valley State Park, California
Dept. of Parks and Recreation, pers. comm. 1993). The general plan for
the park indicates a campground to be placed over the larger portion of
A. clarianus, but the Service does not consider the proposed action in
this plan as an imminent threat because of lack of funding and possible
revisions to the park plan (W. Grummer, pers. comm. 1993). At present,
no specific plans to develop a campground have been made (W. Grummer,
pers. comm. 1996). Although the campground development may be relocated
away from the population of A. clarianus, the Service considers that
increased recreational use from an additional campground in this park
constitutes a potential threat.
The third population of Astragalus clarianus occurs near the City
of Santa Rosa in eastern Sonoma County. This population was estimated
at 2,100 plants in 1996 scattered over 6 ha (15 ac) and appears stable
at the present time (Saxon Holt, CNPS, Milo Baker Chapter, pers. comm.
1996). It is on private land under a voluntary protection agreement
with TNC. Upslope and adjacent to this population is the 454 ha (1,350
ac) approved Saddle Mountain subdivision (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993, S.
Holt, pers. comm. 1996). Soil erosion from proposed road and pad
construction for house lots potentially threatens this population of A.
clarianus (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). Construction of this development
has not yet begun (S. Holt, pers. comm. 1996).
The fourth population of Astragalus clarianus consisted of 2,238
plants in 1993 scattered over less than 2 ha (5 ac) of private land (J.
Ruygt, in litt. 1993). Feral pigs uprooted a substantial number of
plants during 1994; the number of plants at this site has declined in
1995 and 1996, although this decline may be attributable to factors
other than damage by pigs (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing
transcript).
One historical occurrence and over 70 percent of the original
habitat of Plagiobothrys strictus have been extirpated by urbanization
and conversion of land to vineyards (CNPS 1990). The two remaining
populations of P. strictus are threatened by urbanization (CNDDB 1996,
CNPS 1990). One of these populations occurs at the Calistoga Airport,
where about 5,000 plants were counted in an area of about 180 m\2\
(2,000 ft\2\) in 1994 (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing
transcript). The number of individuals in this population fluctuates
considerably, perhaps due to variations in spring rainfall between
years (CDFG 1988). Future development at this site could threaten this
population (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993), as could airport maintenance
activities (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). The other population of P.
strictus is scattered over a 4 ha (10 ac) area bisected by an asphalt
road on private land near Myrtledale Hot Springs in the City of
Calistoga. The number of individuals in this population was estimated
to be in the hundreds (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). In recent years, the
landowner has denied access to the site. The landowner has proposed to
build a hospital on this site, but has been unsuccessful due to current
zoning status (CDFG 1988; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers.
comm. 1996).
Historically, the habitat of the two remaining populations of Poa
napensis has been reduced by the development of health spas and resorts
in the City of Calistoga and other construction activities at the
Calistoga Airport (CNPS 1989). The remnant population of P. napensis at
the Calistoga Airport was thought to be extirpated as a result of
construction activities in 1981 because no plants were found that year.
By 1987, however, 500 plants were counted at the airport location (CDFG
1989; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). In 1994 and 1996, about 150 plants were
counted at the airport site (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). The only
other population is near Myrtledale Hot Springs in the City of
Calistoga, where several thousand plants were reported in a 100 m\2\
(1,100 ft\2\) area in the early 1980's. The landowner has denied access
to the property in recent years. Because Poa napensis and Plagiobothrys
strictus occur at both the Calistoga Airport site and the other site
near Myrtledale Hot Springs, the threats from urbanization, including
construction of a hospital, are the same for both species (CNPS 1987,
1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996).
The single known population of Carex albida is located
approximately 46 m (150 ft) from a State highway in a sphagnum bog. Any
direct impact or change in the hydrology of the area resulting from
highway widening or maintenance, or a change in land use would
adversely affect the population. Draining the wetland would not only
directly impact the species but would encourage the spread of
blackberries (Rubus spp.), which have become dominant in other parts of
the marsh that have been drained (CDFG 1993a; CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz,
in litt. 1993).
When the proposed rule was written, a wastewater treatment project
was proposed to be built 300 m (328 yards) from the Carex albida
population. Potential impacts from this project, as originally
proposed, included adverse effects from the application of recycled
wastewater and the temporary or permanent removal of wetlands, riparian
vegetation, and special status plants and their habitats (Environmental
Science Associates 1993). The treatment plant has now been constructed,
but the use of recycled wastewater has not been implemented (B.
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). If implemented, from 1,200 to 4,900 cubic m
(1 to 4 ac-ft) of wastewater per year would be applied on approximately
14 to 27 ha (35 to 60 ac) of land. Although the population of C. albida
would not be directly impacted, the application of this volume of
wastewater could result in the alteration of remaining habitat within
the historical range of C. albida through modification of surface
hydrology (Environmental Science Associates 1993). The historical
ranges of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and Alopecurus aequalis
var. sonomensis also occur within the project boundaries.
The type locality of Clarkia imbricata along the roadside at Pitkin
Ranch was extirpated prior to 1974, as a probable result of changes in
land use or roadside maintenance (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). Another
population of C. imbricata in Sonoma County was extirpated as a result
of tree farming and weed control activities (B. Guggolz, in litt.
1993). The sole remaining natural population of C. imbricata is
threatened by changing land use, such as conversion to agriculture, and
inadvertent mowing of its habitat (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993; B.
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).
One site with two populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
was largely destroyed by urbanization in 1961; however, approximately
300 plants remain at this site (CDFG 1993b;
[[Page 54800]]
B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Although a subdivision is planned for
the area surrounding a portion of this site, the landowner agreed to
protect a portion of the habitat of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
(Allan Buckmann, CDFG, in litt. 1993; B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).
This agreement, if implemented, would place all sensitive natural
resource areas in a conservation easement for long-term management,
with CDFG as easement holder (A. Buckmann, in litt. 1993). Neither this
easement, however, nor another easement that would protect the other
population of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense at this site, has been
executed and recorded (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). At the second
site, wetland fills in the marsh have lowered the water table and
resulted in drier soil conditions, which have negatively affected L.
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense. This change in habitat quality is
considered a significant threat to the population (CDFG 1993b), since
only about 10 plants remain at this site (CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz, pers.
comm. 1996).
One of the two remaining sites of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is
threatened by permitted and unauthorized water diversions from a stream
that flows into the marsh where two subpopulations of the species
occur. In the past, these diversions have removed all water from the
stream channel, eliminating a source of surface water to the marsh (A.
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Plant census data from 1991 indicate that
the eastern and western subpopulations in the marsh declined by
approximately 40 and 30 percent, respectively, compared to 1989 and
1990 data. These figures suggest that this population may have been
experiencing a delayed response to a drought period that began in the
late 1980's. The adverse effects of future droughts may be exacerbated
by increased surface water diversions and result in a further decline,
or extinction of the species (John Turner, CDFG, in litt. 1993).
Trifolium amoenum was known from about 20 historical occurrences in
7 counties (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; CNDDB 1996). Loss of this habitat
resulted primarily from urbanization and land conversion to agriculture
(CNPS, 1977; Corelli and Chandik 1995). Two occurrences of T. amoenum
have been recently discovered. The occurrence found in 1993 in Sonoma
County consisted of a single plant located on private property that has
subsequently been developed. The second, a population of about 200
plants, is found on two residential lots in Marin County (P. Connors,
pers. comm 1996). If this property is further developed or altered, it
may no longer contain suitable habitat for T. amoenum. Widespread
urbanization has occurred, and continues to occur, throughout the
historic range of the species. The populations of Sonoma and Marin
counties are expected to grow by 11.1 and 10.4 percent, respectively,
by the year 2000 (California Department of Finance 1993, 1996).
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. One of the remaining populations of Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has been nearly extirpated by uncontrolled
collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural use. This
species was abundant historically at this site, but the removal of
plants and bulbs for horticultural use reduced this population to two
plants by 1993 (CDFG 1993b). This population of L. pardalinum ssp.
pitkinense has since expanded slightly to approximately 10 plants (B.
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Similar activities at the remaining site,
which contains only 300 individuals in two populations, would likely
result in the extinction of the species (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1993,
1996). Of the two remaining populations of Clarkia imbricata, one
population is found in a preserve owned by the CNPS. Although CNPS has
attempted to discourage unauthorized collection by fencing the preserve
and by not publicizing the exact location of the site, trespassers have
damaged the fence, trampled the vegetation, and collected seed of C.
imbricata on several occasions (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).
No evidence of over-collection of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida by
botanists and/or horticulturists for scientific and commercial purposes
is known at this time, although the species is considered to have
horticultural potential (Hill 1993). Both populations are small enough,
however, that even limited collecting pressure would have adverse
impacts. Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is an attractive plant, and may
be sought for collection once the rarity of this species becomes known
and if current site locations become known. Wild collected seed of the
species, S. oregana (no variety given), are available through a seed
exchange program offered by an international gardening society (North
American Rock Garden Society (NARGS) 1996).
Any occurrences of Trifolium amoenum that may be discovered in the
future also may attract collectors of plants or seed because the
species was previously considered to be extinct. Overutilization is
currently not known to be a factor for the remaining five species, but
unrestricted collecting for scientific or horticultural purposes or
excessive visits by individuals interested in seeing rare plants could
result from increased publicity as a result of this proposal.
C. Disease or predation. Little is known about any diseases that
may affect the nine plant species considered here. None of the species
is currently known to be threatened by disease.
Seven of the 8 known sites of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
are currently grazed or have been grazed in recent years by cattle
(CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996). All
three populations in Sonoma County are currently threatened by cattle
grazing (CNDDB 1996), as is a portion of one population outside of a
fenced area on the PRNS where three small patches disappeared from a
gathering place for cattle over a one week period of observation (V.
Norris, in litt. 1995). The portion of the population inside of the
fenced area decreased from 603 flowering culms (stems) in 1995 to 195
flowering culms in 1996, possibly due to annual fluctuation or
competition from other vegetation (R. Soost, in litt. 1996). Another
population on the PRNS was fenced from cattle in 1987. The number of
individuals of A. aequalis var. sonomensis was 0 in 1990, 14 in 1991,
and 0 in 1993, possibly due to competition from a dense growth of other
marsh plants (V. Norris, in litt. 1993). Since then, experiments have
been conducted with partial opening and closing of the entry gate, but
few cattle found their way in and no plants have been seen at this site
since 1991 (V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, , in litt. 1996). These
results suggest that some grazing may be necessary to maintain
populations of A. aequalis var. sonomensis in the face of competition
from other plants, but that excessive grazing by cattle can adversely
impact the species.
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is adversely affected at both of its
locations by reduced seed set resulting from cattle grazing (CNPS
1988b). Populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense have been
enclosed with various types of wire fencing in an attempt to prevent
grazing or browsing by cattle, horses, and deer, but most of the fences
have failed to prevent grazing completely. The plants continue to
suffer from herbivory by cattle, deer, and perhaps gophers and other
herbivores, resulting in loss of flowers and seeds (L. Lozier, in litt.
1990).
Trifolium amoenum may have disappeared from some of its former
[[Page 54801]]
locations due to grazing (Connors 1994). This species is a large clover
that blooms when many grassland plants have already turned brown,
likely making it more attractive to grazing herbivores. Most recent
sightings of the plant were located outside of fences along roadsides,
suggesting that the species survived for a period where it was
protected from grazing (Connors 1994). Threats due to herbivory on the
one natural population of this species, which occurs on portions of two
residential lots, are unknown, but livestock grazing is unlikely.
Grazing may, however, pose a threat to any undiscovered sites for the
species.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The California
Fish and Game Commission has listed Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata,
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana
ssp. valida as endangered species under the California Endangered
Species Act (Division 3, Chapter 1.5 section 2050 et seq. of the
California Fish and Game Code and Title 14 California Code of
Regulations 670.2). The California Fish and Game Commission has also
listed Astragalus clarianus and Plagiobothrys strictus as threatened
species. Listing by the State of California requires individuals to
obtain authorization from CDFG to possess or ``take'' a listed species.
Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants is prohibited (California
Native Plant Protection Act, Division 2, Chapter 10, section 1908 and
California Endangered Species Act, Division 3, Chapter 1.5, section
2080), State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat
modification or land use changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a
landowner that a State-listed plant grows on his or her property, the
California Native Plant Protection Act only requires that the landowner
notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land
use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (Division 2, Chapter 10, section
1913 of the California Fish and Game Code).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full
disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects.
The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the
project is designated as the lead agency and is responsible for
conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other
agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible
for State listing as rare, threatened, or endangered, but are not so
listed, are given the same protection as those species that are
officially listed with the State or Federal governments. Once
significant effects are identified, the lead agency has the option to
require mitigation for effects through changes in the project or to
decide that overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible. In
the latter case, projects may be approved that cause significant
environmental damage, such as destruction of endangered species.
Protection of listed species through CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon
the discretion of the agency involved. In addition, CEQA guidelines
recently have been revised in ways which, if made final, may weaken
protections for threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species.
Hot spring areas and perennial freshwater emergent marshes are
generally small and scattered, and treated as isolated wetlands or
waters of the United States for regulatory purposes by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
However, the Clean Water Act, alone, does not provide adequate
protection for Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Carex albida,
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, Plagiobothrys
strictus, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and Trifolium amoenum. For
example, Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 26 (33 CFR part 330 Appendix B
(26)) was established by the Corps to facilitate issuance of permits
for discharge of fill into wetlands. Under current regulations, NWPs
may be issued for fills up to 1.2 ha (3.0 ac); fills greater than 1.2
ha require an individual permit. For project proposals falling under
NWP 26, the Corps seldom withholds authorization unless a listed
threatened or endangered species' continued existence would be
jeopardized by the proposed action, regardless of the significance of
other wetland resources. Moreover, for fills less than 0.13 ha (\1/3\
ac) only an after-the-fact report is required by the Corps. This report
must be submitted within 30 days of completion of the work and include
only the name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; location
and description of the work; and the type and acreage of the loss. All
of the populations of the seven species in this rule that occur in
wetlands are significantly smaller than 0.13 ha (\1/3\ ac). Although
General Condition 11 of the NWP states that ``no activity is authorized
under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
a threatened or endangered species or which is likely to destroy or
modify the critical habitat of such species,'' the after-the-fact
nature of the reporting requirement is inadequate to ensure the
protection of populations that occur in areas smaller than the 0.13 ha
(\1/3\ ac) threshold. Four of the seven plant species in this rule that
occur in wetlands are known from only two populations, and two of the
seven species are known only from a single population. Thus, for six of
the seven species, the post facto reporting requirement may be
inadequate to prevent their extinction.
Additionally and equally important, the upland watersheds that
contribute significantly to the hydrology of marshes are not provided
any direct protection under section 404. Disturbance to, or loss of,
seep or marsh habitat and alteration of hydrology have damaged
populations and habitat, as discussed previously under Factor A.
Reductions in water volume or inundation of the sites have the
potential to adversely affect the seven plant taxa listed above. Thus,
as a consequence of the small size of these marsh, meadow, and hot
spring areas and lack of protection of associated uplands, these types
of habitats receive insufficient protection under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
The Sonoma County Department of Planning has designated several
marshes where some of these plants occur as ``critical habitat''
(Sonoma County 1989). The streams within these marshes are designated
as ``riparian corridors.'' It is not likely that these designations
will adequately protect the species involved. County policies for
``critical habitat'' include 15 m (50 ft) setbacks of construction from
wetland boundaries and preparation of biotic resource assessments for
development of mitigation measures, if the planning director determines
that a ``critical habitat'' area will be impacted (Sonoma County 1989).
A setback may be waived, however, if the setback is determined to make
the parcel unsuitable for construction. The single population of Carex
albida and the larger population of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
occur within 15 m (50 ft) of streams in Sonoma County (CNDDB 1996). The
Sonoma County policy for ``riparian corridors'' allows the removal of
riparian vegetation as part of a pest management program administered
by the County Agricultural Commissioner, as well as construction of
roads and summer dams (Sonoma County 1989). In addition, agricultural
projects that may involve removal of native vegetation, including the
species in this
[[Page 54802]]
rule and their habitats, are considered in Sonoma County to be
``ministerial'' (Ken Ellison, Sonoma County Department of Planning,
pers. comm. 1993). Ministerial projects are those projects that the
public agency must approve after the applicant shows compliance with
certain legal requirements. They may be approved or carried out without
undertaking CEQA review.
Only a few measures have been taken to protect some of the species
in this rule. In 1989, the landowners of the two confirmed populations
of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense entered into voluntary protection
agreements with TNC (CDFG 1993b). Since that time, TNC and the
California Conservation Corps have jointly built and maintained cattle
exclosures in an attempt to protect the plants at both sites. Some
plants, however, continue to suffer herbivory from livestock and
wildlife, resulting in loss of flowers and seeds (L. Lozier, in litt.
1990). A memorandum of understanding is currently in effect between
CDFG and the Berry Botanic Garden, Portland, Oregon, for research on
germination and recovery of this species (CDFG 1993b). TNC also
obtained a voluntary agreement with private landowners in 1990 to
protect one population of Astragalus clarianus.
CDFG has proposed to purchase approximately 37 ha (90 ac) of the
marsh where Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida occurs to create an ecological
preserve (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Acquisition of the preserve,
however, is dependent on the cooperation of the current landowners. The
owner of one parcel with about half of the population has declined to
sell her property to the State (N. Wilcox, pers. comm. 1994). Purchase
of the land as a preserve would ensure appropriate grazing practices on
the site and would allow direct management of the plant population with
possible opportunities to expand the population (A. Howald, pers. comm.
1993). The preserve would include only a small portion of the
watershed, however, limiting the protection that the preserve would
afford to the hydrology of the marsh (N. Wilcox, pers. comm. 1994).
TNC also has entered into a verbal conservation agreement with a
landowner for the protection of the one natural population of Clarkia
imbricata. However, this population of C. imbricata was inadvertently
mowed before seed set in 1989 and 1991, reducing the seed production
and number of plants in the years following mowing (B. Guggolz, in
litt. 1993).
Seed from cultivated Trifolium amoenum plants is currently being
collected for future reintroduction efforts (P. Connors, pers. comm.
1994, 1996). In addition, half of the seed that was recovered from the
single plant in 1993 was deposited for long-term storage at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort
Collins, Colorado (Connors 1994).
Although the PRNS is part of the National Park system, 17 cattle
and dairy ranches are contained within its boundaries. Grazing and
ranching, which have occurred on the peninsula for more than a century,
have been determined to be ``consistent with the purpose for which the
Seashore was authorized'' (Clark and Fellers 1987). Clark and Fellers
(1986) state that grazing has been a serious threat to Alopecurus
aequalis var. sonomensis occurrences located on the Seashore, but more
recent reports indicate concerns about both too much and too little
grazing (CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt.
1996).
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis suffers from competition
from invasive emergent wetland species, including rushes (Juncus spp.)
and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.) at one location. These wetland plants have
nearly extirpated A. aequalis var. sonomensis from that site (V.
Norris, in litt. 1993; CNDDB 1996). Additionally, A. aequalis var.
sonomensis is not readily propagated. Three attempts to reintroduce the
species from seed to suitable habitat within its range have failed, as
has an attempt to start a population in the East Bay Botanic Garden in
Tilden Park. Naturally occurring floods also may be an ongoing threat.
One population was damaged by a flash flood in 1993 (V. Norris, in
litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996).
The population of Astragalus clarianus located along the north
shore of Lake Hennessey has an infestation of the invasive and
dominating alien weed, yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (A.
Howald, pers. comm. 1993; J. Ruygt, hearing transcript). This
infestation was a direct result of ground disturbance associated with
the removal of dredge spoils that were placed on top of this population
as discussed under Factor A (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Competition
from this alien annual weed is also considered a threat to the
population of A. clarianus at the Bothe Napa Valley State Park (J.
Ruygt, in litt. 1993). A proposed application to build two small
agricultural water storage reservoirs along a creek in Napa County
would avoid direct impacts to another population of A. clarianus, but
ground disturbance would most likely introduce this same alien invasive
weed (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
Plant succession may be excluding or reducing the population of
Astragalus clarianus at one site (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993) where A.
clarianus grows sparingly in the gaps between manzanita plants. As
established plants continue to grow, and new manzanita seedlings become
established, less space is available for A. clarianus. Fire suppression
has reduced fire frequency in the manzanita community. Periodic fire
reduces manzanita cover and creates space for other plants, including
A. clarianus. This species, therefore, is vulnerable to habitat loss
from plant succession. Another population of A. clarianus is threatened
by competition from French broom (Genista monospessulana), an invasive
alien shrub, and the rooting behavior of wild pigs (CNDDB 1996; J.
Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996).
The potential for loss of the only population of Sidalcea oregana
ssp. valida from naturally occurring events, because of the small
population size, is exacerbated by drought and water diversions. In
addition, this population is being encroached upon by invasive weeds,
including yellow star-thistle and blackberry (A. Howald, pers. comm.
1993). One of the subpopulations was damaged by an off-road vehicle
during maintenance of a local aqueduct, which passes through the marsh.
The maintenance activity occurred late in the season when the soil was
relatively dry, resulting in minimal damage to the plants. If such
maintenance activities occur during a time when the soil is saturated,
they pose a threat to the plants (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
Because Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is unlikely to be self-
pollinating, single plants or widely separated plants in sparse
populations may not set viable seed (Mark Skinner, CNPS, pers. comm.
1994). The remaining plants at one site are monitored closely by CNPS
volunteers and, at the time the proposed rule was written, had not been
observed to have set seed for several years (M. Skinner, pers. comm.
1994). Much of the habitat for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has been
invaded by blackberry vines that compete for space, light, and
nutrients (CDFG 1993b).
Grass mowing, vehicle traffic, and parking have impacted and
continue to threaten one population of Poa napensis at the Calistoga
airport (CNPS 1990; Robert Soreng, Cornell Univ., in litt. 1993). Grass
mowing is done at regular intervals through the spring and summer to
reduce fire and aircraft safety hazards. Mowing for fire control during
[[Page 54803]]
the reproductive cycle of Clarkia imbricata has reduced the size of one
of its populations by a third (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1996). Airport
users include a spray plane service, recreational gliders, and
associated tow planes. Service vehicles for the planes and the private
vehicles of the customers impact this population of P. napensis,
especially during the spring and summer when airport use increases.
The extirpation of historical populations of Trifolium amoenum may
have partially been a result of competition with weedy, alien plant
species. A recent germination study of other Trifolium species from
historical T. amoenum habitat in Sonoma County suggested that some
annual Trifolium species germinate in late November, well after many
introduced species, including redstem storkbill (Erodium cicutarium),
ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and California burclover (Medicago
polymorpha) (Connors 1994). By germinating and growing earlier, it is
likely that alien species have reduced the numbers of T. amoenum plants
by occupying available space (Connors 1994).
The small population size of most of these nine plant species
increases the susceptibility to extirpation from random events.
Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for one or more populations
of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida. The single extant population of Trifolium
amoenum contains about 200 individuals. These species may also be
subject to increased genetic drift and inbreeding as a consequence of
their small population sizes (Menges 1991, Ellstrand and Elam 1993).
Increased homozygosity resulting from genetic drift and inbreeding may
lead to a loss of fitness (ability of individuals to survive and
reproduce) in small populations. In addition, reduced genetic variation
in small populations may make any species less able to successfully
adapt to future environmental changes (Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Thus,
seven of the nine species are threatened by potential loss of fitness
and/or genetic variability associated with small population sizes.
Each of the species addressed in this rule is known from few
populations. Carex albida and Trifolium amoenum each have only one
population. Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
each have only two confirmed populations. Astragalus clarianus is known
from four populations. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis has eight
populations. The combination of few populations, small range, and
restricted habitat makes the nine species highly susceptible to
extinction or extirpation from a significant portion of their ranges
due to random events, such as flood, drought, disease, or other
occurrences (Shaffer 1981, Primack 1993). Such events are not usually a
concern until the number of populations or geographic distribution
become severely limited, as is the case with all of the species
discussed here. Once the number of populations, or the plant population
size, is reduced due to habitat destruction or fragmentation, the
remnant populations, or portions of populations, have a higher
probability of extinction from random events.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by these species in determining to make this rule
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus
clarianus (Clara Hunt's milkvetch), Carex albida (white sedge), Clarkia
imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
(Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga allocarya), Poa
napensis (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood marsh
checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum (showy Indian clover) as
endangered. Competition with invasive plant species or excessive cattle
grazing threatens five of the eight remaining populations of Alopecurus
aequalis var. sonomensis. Efforts to reintroduce this species to sites
within its range have failed. If combined, all four populations of
Astragalus clarianus would occupy only a 0.5 ha (1 ac) area, and are
threatened variously by a potential water storage project, an approved
subdivision, competition from invasive plant species, recreational
activities, airport maintenance, and elimination through plant
community succession. The single Carex albida population, totaling
approximately 1,000 plants, is located 46 m (150 ft) from the State
highway and is threatened by potential changes in the site's hydrology
resulting from wetland drainage or fill, competition from invasive
plant species, changes in land management by the owner, highway
widening or maintenance, and potential disturbance from a proposed
wastewater treatment. The two remaining populations of Clarkia
imbricata are threatened by changing land use, mowing for fire control,
and unauthorized collection. The three remaining populations of Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, totaling approximately 300 plants, suffer
from uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for
horticultural use, and from herbivory by livestock and wildlife. One
site is potentially threatened by a proposed wastewater treatment
project; the other site is potentially threatened by a proposed
subdivision. Competition from invasive plants such as blackberry also
adversely impacts this species. If combined, the remaining populations
of Plagiobothrys strictus and Poa napensis would occupy an area of less
than 0.5 ha (1 ac) each. These populations are surrounded by hot
springs resorts or housing. Plagiobothrys strictus and Poa napensis
both occur at the same two sites where they are threatened by airport
activities, including traffic and vehicle parking on the plants, grass
mowing, and land use changes, including the construction of a hospital
at one site. Both populations of the two species are also threatened by
potential alteration of hot springs hydrology. The only population of
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is threatened by trampling and reduced
seed set resulting from cattle grazing, aqueduct maintenance,
competition from invasive plant species, and the potential alteration
of hydrology from urbanization. Trifolium amoenum has been extirpated
from all 24 historical occurrences in seven counties; the species
currently is known from one natural population. This species is
threatened by competition with invasive plant species, loss of habitat
from urbanization and other land use changes. All nine species, because
of their few, small populations and very narrow ranges are also highly
susceptible to genetic complications and at increased risk of local
extirpation or extinction from random events.
These nine species are imminently threatened by extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range by the factors
summarized above, and the final action, therefore, is to list them as
endangered.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied
[[Page 54804]]
by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Critical
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following
situations exist--(1) Information sufficient to perform required
analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat (50 CFR
424.12(a)(2)). Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or
other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for any of these nine plant taxa. Designation of critical
habitat is not prudent for Astragalus clarianus, Clarkia imbricata,
Lilium pardalinum, Carex albida, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis,
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, Trifolium amoenum, and Alopecurus
aequalis var. sonomensis because of lack of benefit. Moreover,
designation of critical habitat for Clarkia imbricata, Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Carex albida, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida,
and some populations of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is not
prudent because doing so would increase the degree of threat to these
species, or another species in this rule with which it occurs. The
basis for these conclusions, including the factors considered in
weighing the benefits against the risks of designation, are provided by
species below.
Astragalus clarianus
None of the four known occurrences of Astragalus clarianus, which
total about 28 ha (70 ac), are on Federal land (CNDDB 1996). This
species does not occur in wetlands and no Federal actions are likely to
occur in its habitat. Critical habitat designation outside of the areas
where A. clarianus occurs also would serve no purpose because all other
historical sites have been destroyed by urban development and
viticulture (CNDDB 1996) and have no practical value for the survival
and recovery of the species. Designation of critical habitat for A.
clarianus, therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional
benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing.
Clarkia Imbricata and Lilium Pardalinum ssp. Pitkinense
Clarkia imbricata and Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense are
attractive to plant collectors and incidents of overutilization and
illegal collection of both species have occurred in the past. Both taxa
are known only from private land. One of the two remaining populations
of C. imbricata occurs on a CNPS preserve where, despite attempts to
not publicize the preserve location and to discourage unauthorized
collection, trespassers have damaged the fencing, trampled vegetation,
and collected seeds of C. imbricata on several occasions (B. Guggolz,
in litt. 1993). Critical habitat designation outside of the areas where
C. imbricata occurs would serve no purpose because no other sites are
known to be essential to the conservation of this species. At one of
the two remaining sites for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, the species
was once abundant, but it has now been nearly extirpated by the
uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural
use (CDFG 1993b). No historical sites for this taxon other than the two
where it now occurs have ever been reported.
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is a wetland species and
alteration of its habitat may be regulated by the Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Service
believes that activities regulated under section 404 that could impact
the habitat of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense are unlikely to occur in
the foreseeable future, and that this species is primarily threatened
by overcollection, unregulated hydrological alterations, competition
from alien plants, and trampling and herbivory by livestock and
wildlife. Moreover, the inadequacies of the section 404 permitting
process for protecting very small plant populations, discussed in
detail under factor D of the ``Summary of the Factors'' section, apply
to this species. In addition to these inadequacies, due to the small
size of the only two populations of this species and the lack of
historical habitat elsewhere, any adverse modification of its habitat
would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This would also
hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. Any
benefits that might result from the designation of critical habitat for
L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense would be outweighed by the likely
increased threat of uncontrolled collection to this species.
Designation of critical habitat for Clarkia imbricata and Lilium
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, therefore, is not prudent because doing so
would increase the degree of threat to these species. Although there
may be a Federal nexus for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense through the
Clean Water Act, the designation of critical habitat for this species
would provide little or no benefit to the protection of this species
beyond that provided by listing. The publication of maps and precise
locations of populations that is required for designation of critical
habitat would contribute to the further decline of this species by
facilitating trespassing, uncontrolled collecting, and hindering
recovery efforts. Any benefit from designation of critical habitat for
these species, therefore, would be outweighed by the increased degree
of risk to these species due to the publication of precise maps of
their populations.
Carex Albida
The only known population of Carex albida occupies less than 300
m\2\ of private land in Sonoma County (CDFG 1993a). Critical habitat
designation outside of the areas where C. imbricata occurs would serve
no purpose. The other four historical localities for the species, due
to hydrological alteration and the long-term effects of effluent
discharge from a cannery (CDFG 1993a), serve no practical value for the
survival and recovery of the species. The Service believes that
activities regulated under section 404 that could impact the habitat of
C. albida are unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, and that
this species is primarily threatened by unregulated hydrological
alterations and competition from native and alien plant species favored
by drier conditions. Moreover, the inadequacies of the section 404
permitting process for protecting very small plant populations,
discussed in detail under factor D of the ``Summary of the Factors''
section above, apply to this species. Even if a proposed fill was
larger than the regulatory threshold and a pre-construction permit was
required, any activity that would destroy or adversely modify the
habitat of the sole remaining population of this species would also
likely jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as
[[Page 54805]]
the species recovers and its numbers increase. Because the site occurs
within 45 m (150 ft) of a State highway, a potential Federal nexus also
exists through activities of the Federal Highway Administration. In
such a situation, however, any action that would adversely modify the
habitat of the only known population of the species would also likely
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. This would also hold
true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. Designation of
critical habitat for C. albida, therefore, is not prudent because it
provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that conferred by
listing. In addition, C. albida occurs at the same site as Lilium
pardalinum ssp. parkinense (see previous paragraph) and the designation
of critical habitat and publication of detailed maps of this site would
contribute to the further decline of the latter species by facilitating
trespassing, uncontrolled collecting, and hindering recovery efforts
for the latter species. The plants at this site are particularly
vunerable since they are close to a State highway and more easily
accessible to collectors.
Alopecurus Aequalis var. Sonomensis
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is the only species in this
rule that occurs on Federal land. Four of the eight known populations
occur on Federal land within the PRNS (CNDDB 1996). The plant appears
to have very strict habitat requirements and suitable habitats occur in
only a few places within the PRNS (V. Norris, in litt. 1995). Several
attempts at establishing new populations in seemingly suitable habitat
on the PRNS have been unsuccessful. The locations of these four
populations are known to the managers of the PRNS and each population
is closely monitored by CNPS members, acting in an official capacity as
National Park Service (NPS) volunteers (V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R.
Soost, in litt. 1996). This monitoring includes annual surveys for new
populations of the species. The NPS has also fenced a portion of one
population. The species within the exclosure declined despite this
effort. Because the presence of this plant, and its specific locations,
are well known to the managers of the PRNS, no modification of its
habitat is likely to occur without consultation under section 7 of the
Act. Any action which would destroy or adversely modify the habitat of
the few remaining populations of this species would also likely
jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as the
species recovers and its numbers increase. Designation of critical
habitat for any of the four populations of Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis on Federal land with the PRNS, therefore is not prudent
because it provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that
conferred by listing.
The other four populations occur on private land and may have a
Federal nexus through the Clean Water Act. However, the inadequacies of
the section 404 permitting process for protecting very small plant
populations, discussed in detail under Factor D of the ``Summary of the
Factors'' section, apply to this species. In addition to these
inadequacies, due to the small size of the only known populations of
this species any adverse modification of its habitat would also likely
jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as the
species recovers and its numbers increase.
Moreover, two of the four populations of Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis on private land are found in proximity to L. pardalinum ssp.
pitkinense (see previous discussion of this species). Although A.
aequalis var. sonomensis is not collected for horticultural use,
mapping specific localities of A. aequalis var. sonomensis could lead
to increased collection of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense. The
horticultural value of the latter species makes it highly attractive
and one of its two populations has been nearly extirpated by the
uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural
use (CDFG 1993b). Designation of critical habitat for these two
populations of Alopecurus sonomensis, therefore, would increase the
degree of threat to Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense by facilitating
trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and hindering recovery
efforts.
Designation of critical habitat for any of the four populations of
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis on Federal land with the PRNS,
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to
the species beyond that conferred by listing. Critical habitat
designation for known populations on private land would also confer no
benefit beyond that provided by listing. Because of the few small
occurrences of this species, any adverse modification of its habitat
would likely jeopardize its continued existence. The publication of
maps and precise locations of the two private populations at which A.
aequalis var. sonomensis occurs with Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
would also contribute to the further decline of the latter species by
facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and hindering
recovery efforts.
Plagiobothrys strictus
Plagiobothrys strictus is known only from two populations on
private land. The total area of these populations is less than 80
m2 (900 ft2). The only other historical locality
has been rendered unsuitable by urbanization and agricultural land
conversion (CNPS 1990) and has no practical value for the survival and
recovery of the species. Thus, the establishment of critical habitat in
this unoccupied area would serve no purpose. As with Carex albida, the
habitat for P. strictus will likely be regulated under section 404 of
the Federal Clean Water Act, but the total area of the population is
significantly smaller than the minimum regulatory threshold of 0.13 ha
(\1/3\ ac) for pre-construction notification. Even if a pre-
construction permit was required, any activity that would destroy or
adversely modify the habitat of the sole remaining population of this
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase.
The designation of critical habitat for Plagiobothrys strictus,
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to
the species beyond that conferred by listing.
Poa Napensis
Both extant populations of Poa napensis occur on private land,
where they occupy slightly more than 100 m2 (1,100
ft2). Urban growth and recreational development of hot
springs in the Calistoga area has rendered all other historical
localities unsuitable for this species (CDFG 1979). Thus, the
establishment of critical habitat in these unoccupied areas would serve
no purpose since these areas have no practical value for the survival
and recovery of the species. At least some of the suitable wetland
habitat for P. napensis may be regulated under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. As with Carex albida and Plagiobothrys strictus, the total
population area is significantly smaller than the 0.13 ha (\1/3\ ac)
minimum regulatory threshold for pre-construction notification. As is
also the case with these species, even if a pre-construction permit was
required, any activity that would destroy or adversely modify the
habitat of the Poa napensis would also likely jeopardize its continued
existence. This would also hold true as the species recovers and its
numbers increase. Designation of critical habitat for P. napensis,
therefore, is not prudent because doing so provides no additional
benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing.
[[Page 54806]]
Sidalcea Oregana ssp. Valida
Both populations of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida occur only on
private land. There is no evidence that the species was ever present at
any other localities (CNPS 1988b, CDFG 1987). It grows in a habitat
which is likely to be regulated under the Clean Water Act but, as with
the other wetland species discussed above, the small populations occupy
less than the 0.13 ha (1/3 ac) minimum regulatory threshold for pre-
construction notification. Moreover, due to the small size of the only
two extant populations, any activity that would destroy or adversely
modify the habitat of either of the two remaining populations of this
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase.
The species is also of recognized horticultural value (Hill 1993), and
wild-collected seeds of this species (no variety given) are available
through a seed exchange program offered by a international gardening
society (NARGS 1996). Both populations are small enough that even
limited collecting pressure would have adverse impacts. Designation of
critical habitat for S. oregana ssp. valida, therefore, is not prudent
because it provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that
conferred by listing and because doing so would increase the degree of
threat to this species. The publication of maps and precise locations
of the populations that is required for designation of critical
habitat, therefore, would contribute to the further decline of this
species by facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and
hindering recovery efforts.
Trifolium Amoenum
Only a single population of Trifolium amoenum is known to be
extant. Although the species was widespread north and east of San
Francisco Bay historically, it had last been seen in 1969 and presumed
extinct until its rediscovery in 1992 after years of searching (Connors
1994). Because it is a large, attractive plant, it is highly likely
that it has been extirpated from its historical localities (Connors
1994). The sole population is on private land with little probability
of any Federal activity. No other suitable habitat on Federal land, or
where any Federal action is likely to occur, is known to exist. The
species has probably been eliminated at its other historical localities
by competition with alien species of annual plants and because of the
prevalance of alien species throughout the historical range of T.
amoenum, (Connors 1994). Although historically the plant was known from
``wet swales,'' the current site is not a regulated wetland. Even if a
Federal nexus were identified, any activity that would destroy or
adversely modify the habitat of the sole remaining population of this
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase.
Designation of critical habitat for Trifolium amoenum at this site,
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to
the species beyond that conferred by listing. Although collection is
not currently thought to be a threat to the species, the plant is large
with showy flowers and its populations are small enough that even
limited collecting pressure would have adverse impacts. Designation of
critical habitat for T. amoenum anywhere within its historical range,
therefore, is not prudent because doing so would increase the degree of
threat to this species. The publication of maps and precise locations
of involved plant populations that is required for designation of
critical habitat would contribute to the further decline of this
species by facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and
hindering recovery efforts.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the State, and requires that recovery
plans be developed for all listed species. The protection required of
Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
To the extent that six of the nine taxa proposed herein are
currently known to inhabit marshes, wet meadows, perennial streams, or
thermal hot springs, the Service anticipates that the Corps will enter
into section 7 consultations regarding these species if it regulates
fill of these wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Because of the small area covered by these populations, however,
actions which could impact their habitats may not be subject to pre-
construction notification. The inadequacies of current regulations for
NWP 26 processing under the Clean Water Act are discussed in detail
under factor D in the ``Summary of Factors'' section above. The
National Park Service may participate in section 7 consultation because
of potential grazing effects on Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis at
the PRNS, and concerning park management plans that directly or
indirectly affect this species.
Listing Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus,
Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and
Trifolium amoenum would provide for development of a recovery plan (or
plans) for them. Such plan(s) would bring together both State and
Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The plan(s) would
establish a framework for agencies to coordinate activities and
cooperate with each other in conservation efforts, set recovery
priorities, and estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish
them. The plan(s) also would describe site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the nine plant
species. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Service
would be more likely to grant funds to affected states for management
actions promoting the protection and recovery of these species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
[[Page 54807]]
implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to import or export any of the plants, transport them in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer them for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or
remove and reduce any of the plants to possession from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Act prohibits the malicious
damage or destruction of endangered plants on areas under Federal
jurisdiction, as well as the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging
or destroying of such plant species in knowing violation of any State
law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving
endangered plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species. The Service anticipates that few permits would
ever be sought or issued for most of the species because they are
typically not sought for cultivation and are uncommon in the wild.
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and Clarkia imbricata, however, are
collected for horticultural use.
It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the
listing of the nine plant species on proposed and ongoing activities
within the species' range. Collection, damage or destruction of these
species on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a
Federal permit may be issued to allow collection for scientific or
recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal (private) lands would
constitute a violation of section 9 when conducted in knowing violation
of California State law or regulations or in violation of State
criminal trespass law. See Factor D. for a discussion of California's
law protecting plants.
As noted above, Federal listing of plant species protects plants
occurring on Federal lands and when Federal activities may affect the
species. Thus, activities on private lands such as landscape
maintenance, clearing vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock grazing,
are not prohibited or regulated unless they are conducted in knowing
violation of State law or are federally funded or authorized. Questions
regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's
Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of
the regulations regarding listed plants and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th
Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/
231-6243).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section
4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection
requirements.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary authors of this final rule are Diane Elam and David
Wright, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, the Service amends as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Section 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic Range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common Name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Alopecurus aequalis var. Sonoma alopecurus... U.S.A. (CA)........ Poaceae............ E 625 NA NA
sonomensis.
* * * * * * *
Astragalus clarianus............. Clara Hunt's milk- U.S.A. (CA)........ Fabaceae........... E 625 NA NA
vetch.
* * * * * * *
Carex albida..................... white sedge......... U.S.A. (CA)........ Cyperaceae......... E 625 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Clarkia imbricata................ Vine Hill clarkia... U.S.A. (CA)........ Onagraceae......... E 625 NA NA
[[Page 54808]]
* * * * * * *
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily... U.S.A. (CA)........ Liliaceae.......... E 625 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Plagiobothrys strictus........... Calistoga allocarya. U.S.A. (CA)........ Boraginaceae....... E 625 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Poa napensis..................... Napa bluegrass...... U.S.A. (CA)........ Poaceae............ E 625 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida..... Kenwood Marsh U.S.A. (CA)........ Malvaceae.......... E 625 NA NA
checker-mallow.
* * * * * * *
Trifolium amoenum................ showy Indian clover. U.S.A. (CA)........ Fabaceae........... E 625 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 29, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-27924 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P