[Federal Register: March 30, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 60)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15142-15152]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30mr98-40]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE80
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Threatened Status for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes
threatened status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa
Cruz tarplant). It is threatened by alteration and destruction of
habitat due to historical and ongoing urban and commercial development,
habitat alteration due to cattle grazing, limited success of seed
transplant populations, and competition from non-native plants. This
proposed rule, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to this
plant. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this
proposed rule.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 29,
1998. Public hearing requests must be received by May 14, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz, Assistant Field Supervisor,
Listing and Recovery, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section) (telephone number 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) was first recognized by
Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle, who published the name Hemizonia
macradenia in 1836 (Ferris 1960). In 1897, E. L. Greene referred the
species to the genus Holocarpha with publication of the new combination
Holocarpha macradenia (DC.) E. Greene (Ferris 1960). This name has
continued to be recognized in the most recent treatment for the genus
(Keil 1993).
Holocarpha macradenia, an aromatic annual herb in the aster
(Asteraceae) family, is one of only four species of Holocarpha, all of
which are restricted to California. The genus name is derived from the
Greek holos for whole and karphos for chaff, referring to the scales
found among the florets on the receptacle (the structure that supports
the florets in the daisy-like flower head). The plant is rigid with
lateral branches that arise to the height of the main stem which is 1
to 5 decimeters (dm) (4 to 20 inches (in)) tall. The lower leaves are
broadly linear and up to 12 centimeters (cm) (5 in) long; the upper
leaves are smaller, with rolled back margins, and are truncated by a
distinctive craterform gland. The yellow flower head is surrounded from
beneath by bracts that each have about 25 stout gland-tipped
projections (Keil 1993). Holocarpha macradenia is distinguished from
other members of the genus by its numerous ray flowers and its black
anthers.
Historically, habitat for Holocarpha macradenia consisted of
grasslands and prairies found on coastal terraces below 100 meters (m)
(330 feet (ft)) in elevation, from Monterey County north to Marin
County. In the Santa Cruz area, the gently sloping terrace platforms
are separated by steep-sided ``gulches,'' whereas in the Watsonville
area (Monterey County) and on the east side of San Francisco Bay, the
terraces are more extensively dissected, and Holocarpha macradenia
populations occur on alluvium derived from the terrace deposits (Palmer
1986). The soils are typically sandy clay soils; the clay component of
these soils holds moisture long into the growing season. The coastal
prairie habitat, found from Monterey Bay and northward, is becoming
increasingly fragmented and restricted in distribution. Historically,
four major factors contributed to changes in the distribution and
composition of coastal prairies--the introduction of highly
competitive, non-native species; an increase in grazing pressures; the
elimination of annual fires; and cultivation (Heady et al.1988).
Santa Cruz tarplant is most frequently associated with grasses;
non-native grasses include wild oats (Avena fatua), Mediterranean
barley (Hordeum hystrix), and bromes (Bromus sp.). Native associates
include needlegrass (Nassela sp.), California oatgrass (Danthonia
californica), and herbaceous species, including other tarplants
(Hemizonia sp.). At some locations, the plant is found with species of
concern, including Gairdner's yampah
[[Page 15143]]
(Perideridia gairdneri), San Francisco popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys
diffusus), Santa Cruz clover (Trifolium buckwestiorum), and the Ohlone
tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone) (California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB) 1997).
Historically, Holocarpha macradenia was known from ``low dry fields
about San Francisco Bay'' (Jepson 1925). Around the San Francisco Bay,
herbarium collections were made from Tamalipas in Marin County in 1934;
from near Berkeley, Oakland, and San Lorenzo in Alameda County as early
as 1894; and from Pinole in Contra Costa County (CNDDB 1997, Specimen
Management System for California Herbaria (SMASCH) 1997). All of the
native San Francisco Bay area populations have been extirpated; the
last remaining native population, known as the Pinole Vista population,
consisting of 10,000 plants, was eliminated in 1993 by a commercial
development (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1997).
By 1959, Munz (1959) also noted it from Santa Cruz County, but
added that the plant was possibly extinct. However, numerous
collections were made from the Monterey Bay area in Santa Cruz County
in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In 1966 and 1969, Hoover made the
first collections in northern Monterey County, just south of the Santa
Cruz County line (SMASCH 1997). Additional populations were found in
Monterey County in the subsequent decades, although the lack of
specific locational information on herbarium labels makes it difficult
to determine exactly how many populations occurred there. According to
CNDDB, nine populations in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties have been
extirpated by development (CDFG 1993). Most recently, in 1993, a
population in Watsonville (known as the Anna Street site) was destroyed
during construction of office buildings and a parking lot (CDFG 1995a).
Holocarpha macradenia is currently known from a total of 18
populations; 12 of these are remaining native populations, and 6 are a
result of experimental seedings. Six of the native populations occur
around the city of Santa Cruz. The names of the six populations are
given here, followed by the population size and (in parentheses), the
year of the most recent survey--Graham Hill Road, 12,000 (1994); Twin
Lakes, 0 (1997); Arana Gulch, 20,000 (1997); O'Neill/Tan, 2 (1993)/0
(1997); Winkle, 0 (1994); Fairway, 1,500 (1993).
The remaining six native populations occur around the city of
Watsonville, scattered from Watsonville Airport to Hall Road, eight
kilometers (km) (five miles (mi)) to the south-southeast. The names of
the six populations are given here, followed by the population size and
(in parentheses) the year of the most recent survey--Watsonville
Airport, 240,000 (1994); Harkins Slough, 15,000 (1993); Apple Hill, 700
(1995); Struve Slough, 1 (1994); Spring Hills Golf Course, 4,000
(1990); Porter Ranch, 3,200 (1993).
The other six extant populations of Holocarpha macradenia are a
result of experimental seed transplants in Wildcat Regional Park in the
east San Francisco Bay area. The names of the six populations are given
here, followed by the population size; surveys were most recently
completed in 1997--Big Belgum, 148; Big Belgum West, 51; Upper Belgum,
22; Mezue, 5,000'7,000; Fowler, 22; Upper Havey, 17 (Olsen et al.
1997).
Holocarpha macradenia is threatened primarily by historic and
current habitat alteration and destruction caused by residential
development. Destruction of habitat may also result from recreational
development, airport expansion, and agriculture. Even where occupied
habitat has been set aside in preserves, conservation easements, and
open spaces, the plant suffers secondary impacts from that development,
such as casual use by residents, children, and pets, the inadvertent
introduction of non-native species into tarplant habitat, and changes
in hydrology resulting from adjacent residential use. Santa Cruz
tarplant is also threatened by competition with non-native species
including a variety of grass species, French broom (Genista
monspessulana), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), acacia (Acacia decurrens,
A. melanoxylon), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) that are
favored by historic disturbances such as cattle grazing. This species
is also threatened by naturally occurring events due to the small
numbers of individuals and limited area occupied by many of the
populations.
Previous Federal Action
Federal action on this plant began when the Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act, prepared
a report on those native U.S. plants considered to be endangered,
threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report (House Doc.
No. 94-51), was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included
Holocarpha macradenia as endangered. On July 1, 1975, the Service
published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the
report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section
4(b)(3)) of the Act and of the Service's intention thereby to review
the status of the plant taxa named therein. On June 16, 1976, the
Service published a proposed rule 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. Holocarpha
macradenia was included in the June 16, 1976 Federal Register document.
In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over two
years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those
proposals already more than 2 years old. Subsequently, on December 10,
1979, the Service published a notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal of
the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made
final, along with four other proposals that had expired. The Service
published an updated notice of review for plants on December 15, 1980
(45 FR 82480). This notice included Holocarpha macradenia as a category
1 candidate (species for which data in the Service's possession was
sufficient to support proposals for listing).
On February 15, 1983, the Service published a notice (48 FR 6752)
of its prior finding that the listing of Holocarpha macradenia was
warranted but precluded in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of
the Act as amended in 1982. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the
Act, this finding must be recycled annually, until the species is
either proposed for listing, or the petitioned action is found to be
not warranted. Each October from 1983 through 1990 further findings
were made that the listing of Holocarpha macradenia was warranted, but
that the listing of this species was precluded by other pending
proposals of higher priority.
Holocarpha macradenia continued to be included as a category 1
candidate in plant notices of review published September 27, 1985 (50
FR 39526), February 1, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR
51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996 notice of review (61
FR 7596), the Service ceased using category designations and included
Holocarpha macradenia as a candidate. Candidate species are those for
which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as
threatened or endangered. The 1997 notice of review, published
September 19 (62 FR 49398) retained Holocarpha macradenia as a
candidate, with a listing priority of 2.
[[Page 15144]]
The processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's
final listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on
December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475), and extended on October 23, 1997 (62 FR
55268). The guidance clarified the order in which the Service processed
rulemakings during fiscal year 1997. The guidance called for giving
highest priority (Tier 1) to handling emergency situations, second
highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the conservation status of
outstanding proposed listings, and third priority (Tier 3) to new
proposals to add species to the lists of threatened and endangered
plants and animals. This proposed rule constitutes a Tier 3 action. The
1997 listing priority guidance remains in effect pending the
publication of the Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 1998/FY 1999.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50
CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to Holocarpha macradenia are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Urbanization has been responsible for severely reducing the extent
of coastal prairie habitat that supports Holocarpha macradenia. All
native populations of Holocarpha macradenia have been extirpated from
Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin counties around the San Francisco Bay
(CDFG 1997a). Habitat for the last naturally occurring population in
the San Francisco Bay area, near Pinole in Contra Costa County, was
converted to a shopping center in 1993 (CDFG 1997a, CNDDB 1997). The
only populations that persist in this area are six populations that
were transplanted as seed into Wildcat Canyon Regional Park in Contra
Costa County.
Since Holocarpha macradenia was listed as endangered by the State
of California in 1979, the (CDFG) has been tracking the status of its
populations. Because locality information on historical collections is
often general, it is difficult to assess the total number of historical
populations. However, CDFG has determined that the plant has been
extirpated from nine locations around the Monterey Bay since 1979 (CDFG
1993, CNDDB 1997). Most recently, a population at what was referred to
as the Anna Street site in Watsonville was destroyed sometime after a
1992 survey, during construction of office buildings and a parking lot
(CDFG 1995a, CNDDB 1997).
In the last four years, increasing concern over the loss of
tarplant habitat and populations have led certain permitting agencies
to require conservation of remaining habitat during review of
development projects. Because of this, the rate of habitat destruction
has been slowed. However, direct impacts and alteration through
secondary effects of development threaten the remaining habitat and
populations. In many cases, historical alteration of habitat has been
exacerbated by current human activities. A detailed description of the
12 remaining native sites is given here. Because the six seed
transplant sites in Contra Costa County are not sites where the plant
was known to be native, the threats to those sites are discussed under
``Factor E.''
The Graham Hill Road site is owned by the Cowell Foundation. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved by the County of Santa
Cruz in 1996 for a development that comprises 52 residences, a fire
station, a common area, a park, and an equestrian facility and trails
on a 170-acre parcel (Environmental Science Associates 1996). The
developer has proposed to include 0.5 acre of occupied tarplant habitat
and 10 acres of coastal prairie habitat within a 17-acre conservation
easement. In addition to Santa Cruz tarplant, other species of concern
occur here, including Gairdner's yampah, San Francisco popcorn flower,
and Santa Cruz clover. In 1994, there were five colonies of tarplant,
occupying less than one acre of habitat. One colony supported 10,000
individuals and the other four collectively supported 2,000
individuals. To date, the development has not proceeded because the
developer has been unable to negotiate a necessary sewage treatment
connection with the City of Scotts Valley. The property and attendant
EIR are currently for sale. French broom has invaded the coastal
prairie habitat and is considered a threat to all four of the plant
species of concern, including Santa Cruz tarplant (Environmental
Science Associates 1995). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this
site by development, competition with non-native plants, and
vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the small extent of
occupied habitat (also see Factor E).
The Twin Lakes site is owned by the California Department of Parks
and Recreation (CDPR). The site has been fragmented by an access road
for park vehicles and several hiking paths. The population occupies
less than 1 acre and has declined as follows--120 individuals in 1986,
fewer than 10 in 1994, 1 in 1996, and 0 in 1997. The decline has been
attributed to competition from French broom and non-native grasses
(CDFG 1995a; G. Gray, ecologist, CDPR, pers. comm. 1997). In the last
three years, CDPR has made progress in removing broom from the site.
They also have experimented with management actions that would enhance
habitat for Holocarpha macradenia through mowing, raking, simulating
cattle hoof action with wood blocks, and burning. The population,
however, has continued to decline. In 1997, CDPR committed significant
funding to continue with experimental management actions (G. Gray,
pers. comm. 1997). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by
competition with non-native plants, and vulnerability to naturally
occurring events due to the small population size and small extent of
occupied habitat (also see Factor E).
The Arana Gulch population is on a 63-acre parcel of land owned and
managed by the City of Santa Cruz (City). In the late 1980s, the
population comprised about 100,000 individuals. Grazing by cattle was
terminated in 1988, and over the next few years, population sizes
decreased due to competition with non-native grasses. In 1993, the
population was down to 133 individuals, and in 1994, no individuals
were seen. In 1994, the City acquired the parcel from a private
landowner. The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with CDFG in 1997 to focus on management actions that would enhance the
four colonies, which cover approximately 5 acres within a 17-acre
management area (CDFG 1997b). Management actions begun in 1995 included
mowing, raking, hoeing, and mechanical scraping of the habitat. In
1997, when the population comprised about 20,000 individuals, the
highest density of tarplant was on a portion of the habitat that had
accidentally burned (K. Lyons, consultant, pers. comm. 1997). The City
is proposing to construct a bicycle path that would bisect the
management area (Brady and Associates, Inc. 1997). Direct impacts to
occupied Santa Cruz tarplant habitat would be avoided, but secondary
impacts associated with increased recreational use may make management
more difficult. Holocarpha macradenia
[[Page 15145]]
is threatened on this site by development and competition with non-
native plants (also see Factor E).
The O'Neill/Tan Ranch population straddles the boundary of two
parcels.
The O'Neill Ranch property is owned by the County Redevelopment
Agency (CRA). In 1996, the County approved development of the 100-acre
property into a county park. The tarplant is located in the upper
reaches of the park where past recreational use has consisted of
occasional hiking. A park management plan is currently being developed,
and will include the population of tarplant in a 15-acre conservation
easement which is zoned for ``passive recreation.'' The plan may
recommend fencing around 1 acre of tarplant habitat in lieu of trying
to restrict hikers to designated trails (S. Gilchrist, CRA, pers. comm.
1997). Although the site receives light use currently, development of
the Tan property will allow easier access to a larger number of people.
The County hopes to establish a cooperative management strategy with
the developers to address management of this population. The size of
the Holocarpha macradenia population has fluctuated since 1979 as
follows--between 100 to 200 plants (1979); 0 (1984); 0 (1985); 170
(1986); 0 (1990); 170 (1991) and 2 (1993) (Brady and Associates 1995).
Santa Cruz clover and Gairdner's yampah are two sensitive species that
occur with the tarplant at this site.
The size of the Holocarpha macradenia population on the Tan parcel
is difficult to determine, as historic surveys did not count
individuals separately from those on the O'Neill parcel. However,
because the total number of individuals in the entire population has
never been larger than 200, it can be inferred that the Tan parcel
supported only a portion of these. In 1996, only one tarplant
individual was seen (Val Haley, consultant, in litt. 1997); in 1997 no
individuals were seen (K. Lyons, pers. comm. 1997). The coastal prairie
habitat on this parcel also supports Gairdner's yampah and Santa Cruz
clover, both species of concern.
The 106-acre Tan property is privately owned, and was approved for
development of 28 residential units in 1997. The habitat mitigation
plan for the development calls for the inclusion of approximately 0.4
acres that support tarplant in a 10.5-acre conservation parcel that
will be managed by the homeowner's association (HRG 1996). The plan
also includes management prescriptions for the conservation parcel,
including mowing, weed control, fencing, and removal of invasive non-
native plants. Invasive non-native plants in the vicinity of the
tarplant include French broom, rattlesnake grass (Briza sp.), and
eucalyptus (HRG 1996). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on the
combined O'Neill/Tan site by development, competition with non-native
plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the
small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also see
Factor E).
The Winkle Avenue site is privately owned. Part of the tarplant
population at this site was destroyed by two phases of a residential
development in 1986, and part of the remaining parcel was placed in a
``temporary open space easement'' (Strelow Consulting 1997). However,
the remaining 58-acre parcel is now also being proposed for development
of 21 residential units (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1997).
Approval by the County of Santa Cruz is pending; the planning
department will recommend that the development be limited to 10
residential units, with the remaining 11 lots to be placed in a
preservation easement (K. Tschantz, County of Santa Cruz Planning
Department, pers. comm. 1997, CDFG in litt. 1997). In 1993, the
tarplant population consisted of approximately 100 plants covering 174
square feet (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc 1997); in 1994, none were
seen (CDFG 1995). In addition to development, the population on this
site has been subject to competition with French broom and non-native
grasses. This site also supports populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle
and Gairdner's yampah, both species of concern. Holocarpha macradenia
is threatened on this site by development, competition with non-native
plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the
small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also see
Factor E).
The Fairway Drive site is privately owned. In 1989, the 30-acre
parcel supported a population of approximately 5,000 plants on less
than one acre. At the time, the site was considered a ``well preserved
fragment of native grassland'' that supported native bunchgrasses
(California oatgrass and purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra)) as well
as several species of concern, including Gairdner's yampah and San
Francisco popcorn flower (CNDDB 1997). Grazing by horses ceased in that
year. In 1993, the population was approximately 1,500 plants (CDFG
1995a, Greening Associates 1995); the decline has been attributed to
cessation of grazing. Several woody non-native species, including
French broom, acacia, pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus globulus), have invaded the grasslands and are rapidly
spreading. In 1996, the County approved a lot split into four parcels,
with the condition that the coastal terrace prairie habitat be placed
in a preservation easement of approximately 15 acres, and a management
plan be developed and implemented (K. Tschantz, pers. comm. 1997).
Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by competition with
non-native plants and by its vulnerability to naturally occurring
events due to small population size and small extent of occupied
habitat (also see Factor E).
Around the city of Watsonville, six native populations of Santa
Cruz tarplant are scattered from Watsonville Airport to Hall Road,
eight kilometers (km) (five mi) to the south-southeast. The Watsonville
Airport site, owned by the City of Watsonville, supports the largest
population of Santa Cruz tarplant. In 1993, the population was
estimated to be 459,000 plants; in 1994, it was estimated to be 240,000
plants (CNDDB 1997). Portions of the 37-acre site are grazed, and other
portions are mowed several times between late spring and late summer.
This management appears to have benefitted the Santa Cruz tarplant by
reducing competition from non-native species. In 1994, the City
released an initial study for proposed clay mining and a 20-year
airport expansion plan. Both activities would potentially reduce
tarplant habitat (Denise Duffy & Associates 1994). Since then, the
proposal to mine clay has been removed from consideration due to
permitting complications. CDFG has been working with City
representatives to formalize an agreement to use ongoing management
activities to enhance tarplant habitat, but a final agreement has not
been reached. CDFG has also been working with City representatives to
develop a strategy to phase airport expansion over a number of years so
that loss of tarplant habitat would be minimized. Holocarpha macradenia
is threatened on this site by development and competition with non-
native plants (also see Factor E).
The Harkins Slough site is privately owned. In 1993, the population
consisted of about 15,000 plants in two colonies, one covering 1 acre,
and the other 0.1 acre in size. Cattle grazing was discontinued in
1990. Current uses of the property include fava bean production. Due to
limited access to the property, the current status of the population is
unknown. In anticipation of developing residences and a golf course,
the owners requested that the
[[Page 15146]]
property be annexed to the City of Watsonville in 1997. However, due to
the public's concern over the loss of prime agricultural land in the
area, the city council turned down the request. In 1997, CDFG
approached the owners with a proposal to assist in conservation
efforts; no agreements have been reached yet. Holocarpha macradenia is
threatened on this site by vulnerability to naturally occurring events
due to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat
(see Factor E) and possibly by development.
The Apple Hill site is owned by the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS). The population used to comprise three
colonies, but two were extirpated by construction of a housing
development on the adjacent private property. The remaining colony
occurs in a strip between the development and Highway 152; the strip
has been used as a play area for local children and pets, a repository
for yard waste, and as a short-cut to the local market (CDFG 1994; G.
Smith, resource ecologist, CDPR, pers. comm 1997). CALTRANS had
proposed moving a fence along the highway such that it would offer
additional protection to the remaining colony. However, due to internal
reorganization and changes in staffing within CALTRANS, this action has
not been taken yet (G. Ruggerone, CALTRANS, pers. comm. 1997). The
population size has fluctuated between 4,000 in 1986 down to 81 in
1994. In the most recent count in 1995, the population supported 700
individuals (CNDDB 1997). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this
site by development and by vulnerability to naturally occurring events
due to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat
(also see Factor E).
The Struve Slough site is privately owned. In the late 1980s, it
supported one of the largest populations of Santa Cruz tarplant,
occupying 4 acres and comprising 400,000 plants in 1989 (CDFG 1995).
However, cattle grazing on the site was terminated in 1989, and since
then, the population size has dropped precipitously. The site is now
dominated by non-native wild oat (Avena sp.), prickly lettuce (Picrus
echioides), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), which outcompete the
tarplant (CDFG 1995). By 1993 and 1994, only one tarplant individual
was observed. The Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma
macrodactylum croceum), a federally endangered species, has also been
documented from this site. An EIR for a housing development at this
site was approved by the City of Watsonville in 1992. However, a
requirement to add a fire road, which would cross regulated wetlands,
has held up the development. A revised EIR is due to be released soon.
The CDFG has expressed an interest in enlisting the property owners in
conservation efforts, but no agreements have yet been reached (D.
Hillyard, plant ecologist, CDFG, pers. comm. 1997). Holocarpha
macradenia is threatened on this site by development, competition with
non-native plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due
to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also
see Factor E).
The Spring Hills Golf Course (Course) site is privately owned. In
1989, Santa Cruz tarplant was observed growing in five separate
colonies scattered over 13 acres in unlandscaped patches between the
course's fairways. The distribution of the colonies suggests that
additional habitat for the tarplant was altered by conversion to
fairway. In 1989 and 1990, the largest colony supported 2,000 to 3,000
plants, and the other four colonies supported between 100 and 400
plants each (CNDDB 1997). The tarplant was last observed at this site
in 1995; at that time, no population size estimates were made, but it
appeared that all colonies were still present (B. Davilla, pers. comm.
1997). In 1997, CDFG approached representatives of the Course and
expressed an interest in enlisting them in conservation efforts. To
date, however, no agreements have been made (D. Hillyard, pers. comm.
1997). The threats to Holocarpha macradenia on this site are uncertain.
The Porter Ranch site is privately owned. Taylor noted that this
site is unusual in that the Holocarpha macradenia population is
primarily in the bottom of a small canyon, rather than on the adjacent
terrace or upper slope (Taylor 1990). The population is scattered over
approximately 10 acres. Between 1984 and 1993, population sizes
fluctuated between 1,500 plants in 1984 and 43,000 in 1989 (CNDDB
1997). The most recent population estimate in 1993 was 3,200 plants.
The site is grazed by cattle; apparently different patches of
Holocarpha macradenia have been grazed with varying intensities (M.
Silverstein, Elkhorn Slough Foundation, pers. comm. 1997). Morgan noted
that there were fewer than 100 plants in 1996 within a cattle exclosure
where there had previously been many more plants (R. Morgan, pers.
comm. 1997). The owners are interested in developing management plans
in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy that would address
appropriate grazing levels to benefit the tarplant (CDFG 1994, M.
Silverstein, pers. comm. 1997). The threats to Holocarpha macradenia on
this site are uncertain.
In summary, development, with its associated effects, is a primary
threat to Holocarpha macradenia. Six of the 12 remaining native
populations are on privately owned lands that are currently or
anticipated to be proposed for urban development (Graham Hill Road, the
Tan portion of O'Neill/Tan, Winkle Avenue, Fairway Drive, Harkins
Slough, and Struve Slough); 1 is on a site slated for a phased, 20-year
airport expansion (Watsonville Airport); and 3 are subject to secondary
effects of adjacent residential development (Arana Gulch, Twin Lakes,
Apple Hill). Although 7 of the 12 sites include plans for conservation
of Holocarpha macradenia, either through development-related
mitigation, or by virtue of being on City, County, or State agency
lands, the successful implementation of these plans has not been
demonstrated. In particular, the size and quality of conservation areas
and management actions prescribed through the environmental review
process (see Factor D) may not be biologically adequate to meet the
goal of long-term conservation of the species. In addition,
conservation areas where Holocarpha macradenia populations are small in
numbers, small in area, whose habitat is degraded, or that continue to
receive secondary effects of adjacent human activities, become more
vulnerable to extirpation from naturally occurring events (see Factor
E).
B. Overuse for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a problem for this species.
C. Disease or Predation.
Disease is not known to be a problem for this species. Predation by
cattle, livestock, or other wildlife species is not known to occur, and
is unlikely given that the oil glands of mature Holocarpha macradenia
would make it unpalatable. Whether very young plants are subject to
predation prior to maturation of oil glands is unknown.
Grazing by cattle has altered habitat for Holocarpha macradenia at
a number of sites (Arana Gulch, O'Neill/Tan, Watsonville Airport,
Harkins Slough, Struve Slough, Porter Ranch, and all six seed
transplant populations in Wildcat Regional Park ). Prior to the spread
of non-native annual grasses in the valleys and foothills of
California, the openings between perennial grasses in grassland and oak
woodland communities were probably occupied by native herbs (Barbour et
al. 1993). Grazing alters the species composition of grasslands in
several ways. The hooves of cattle create
[[Page 15147]]
sufficient soil disturbance to allow the establishment of non-native
species, intensive grazing eliminates native species through selective
foraging and favors the establishment of non-native species, and cattle
act as dispersal vectors for non-native species (Heady 1977; Sauer
1988, Willoughby 1986). Once non-native species become established,
they compete with native herbs and grasses for water, nutrients, and
light. Because non-native grasses are prolific seeders, they continue
to increase in abundance at the expense of the native taxa.
Once habitat for Holocarpha macradenia has been altered by grazing
and the proliferation of non-native plants, continued grazing may be
deleterious or beneficial to the persistence of the species. The
effects of continued grazing on Holocarpha macradenia depend on many
factors, including the current condition of the site, the timing, and
the amount of grazing. In some cases, light to moderate grazing will
remove sufficient biomass of non-native grasses to allow Holocarpha
macradenia to persist (CDFG 1995a, CDFG 1995b). For example, a
combination of mowing and grazing has probably favored the persistence
of Holocarpha macradenia at the Watsonville Airport site. The decline
of Holocarpha macradenia on the Struve Slough site has been attributed
to the cessation of grazing (CDFG 1995a, Taylor 1990). On the other
hand, heavy grazing is most likely responsible for the decline or
restriction in Holocarpha macradenia population sizes at the Arana
Gulch, Tan, and portions of the Porter Ranch sites (CNDDB 1997, CDFG
1995a), as well as one of the seed transplant populations (Big Belgum)
in Wildcat Canyon Regional Park (CDFG 1995b).
Because cattle grazing has frequently resulted in increasing the
abundance of non-native species, competition with these non-natives is
typically a problem. Additional discussion on this issue is found under
Factor E of this rule.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The CDFG Commission listed Holocarpha macradenia as an endangered
species in 1979 under the California Native Plant Protection Act
(CNPPA) (Div. 2, chapter 10 sec. 1900 et seq. of the CDFG Code) and the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Division 3, Chapter 1.5 sec.
2050 et seq.). Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants has long
been prohibited under the CNPPA, Division 2, Chapter 10, section 1908
and the CESA, Division 3, Chapter 1.5, section 2080, in the past these
statutes have not provided adequate protection for such plants from the
impacts of habitat modification and land use change. For example, under
CNPPA, after CDFG notifies a landowner that a State-listed plant grows
on his or her property, the statute requires only that the landowner
notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land
use to allow salvage of such plant'' (CNPPA, Division, 2, Chapter 10,
section 1913). Under recent amendments to CESA, a permit under section
2081(b) of the CDFG Code is required to ``take'' State listed species
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The amendments require that
impacts to the species be fully mitigated. However these new
requirements have not been tested and several years will be required to
evaluate their effectiveness.
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.
The County of Santa Cruz recently revised its Local Coastal Program
and General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994). Under this plan,
``grasslands in the coastal zone'' are identified as one of a number of
Sensitive Habitats. Uses allowed within Sensitive Habitat areas are
restricted to those that are dependent on the habitat's resources
unless other uses are ``(a) consistent with protection policies and
serve a specific purpose beneficial to the public; (b) it is determined
through environmental review that any adverse impacts on the resource
will be completely mitigated and that there is no feasible less-
damaging alternative; and (c) legally necessary to allow a reasonable
economic use of the land, and there is no feasible less-damaging
alternative.'' (Santa Cruz County 1994). The County has attempted to
protect Santa Cruz tarplant during review of proposals for development
that fall under their purview by establishing conservation easements
volunteered by the project applicant, or preservation easements
requested of the applicant by the County. To date, these include
development projects at the following sites--Graham Hill Road, O'Neill,
Tan, Winkle, and Fairway Drive. These easements typically set aside all
or most of the occupied habitat of Holocarpha macradenia and provide
for implementation of management plans for the attendant coastal
prairie habitat. Despite these efforts, however, the easements cover
small remnant acreages that represent only a fragment of the original
coastal prairie habitat that used to occur in the region, and intensive
management will be needed to support Holocarpha macradenia on these
sites.
Since Holocarpha macradenia was listed by the State in 1979, CDFG
has been tracking the status of its populations. Concern increased in
the late 1980s and early 1990s when it became apparent that native
populations were being destroyed by development, both in the San
Francisco Bay area and the Monterey Bay area. In 1993 and 1995, CDFG
hosted three Holocarpha macradenia recovery workshops to review the
status of the species and attendant populations, and to identify needed
actions to conserve the species. As a result of these workshops, CDFG
developed a MOU with the City of Santa Cruz addressing management of
the population at Arana Gulch, initiated discussion with the City of
Watsonville regarding the development of a MOU for management of the
Watsonville Airport site, provided funding for management of several
populations (including those at Arana Gulch and at Wildcat Regional
Park), and developed a conservation plan for the species, including a
list of four priority sites to target for conservation. Efforts to
enlist the four property owners to conserve the species are pending.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Three additional factors threaten the continued existence of
Holocarpha macradenia--limited success of transplant efforts,
competition with
[[Page 15148]]
non-native plants, and extinction caused by naturally occurring events.
In Factor A above, detailed accounts were given of the 12 remaining
native populations of Holocarpha macradenia. The other six extant
populations of Holocarpha macradenia are a result of experimental seed
transplants. A brief summary of these transplanted populations is
warranted. In 1911, Jepson referred to Holocarpha macradenia as being
``abundant'' in west Berkeley and Oakland (Havlik 1986). Due to loss of
habitat to urbanization, Munz (1959) considered the taxon ``possibly
extinct.'' Therefore, when several populations were found near Pinole
and Richmond in Contra Costa County in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
botanists placed a high priority on establishing additional populations
to forestall extinction. Experiments were carried out to establish new
populations by seeding what was thought to be appropriate habitat
(Havlik 1986). Most of the transplants were done at Wildcat Canyon
Regional Park, which straddles Alameda and Contra Costa counties, but
several transplants were on lands owned and managed by East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).
Havlik (1989) reviewed results from the first seven years of seed
transplants and discussed how habitat characteristics, including soil
type, grazing pressure (cattle), and occurrence within the coastal fog
belt, may have affected transplant success. Initial data suggested that
populations exposed to moderate grazing pressure were larger than those
exposed to low grazing pressure. From 1982 to 1986, a total of 22 seed
transplants was attempted within Wildcat Regional Park and on EBMUD
land. Most of the sites have been monitored annually since then. In
1989, 3 sites supported over 3,000 plants; two had over 1,000 plants;
eleven had over 100 plants; 2 had over 10 plants; and 4 had no plants.
By 1993, 1 site (referred to as Mezue) supported a population of
6,400 plants; 4 had fewer than 300 plants; 2 had fewer than 100 plants;
10 had no plants; and 3 sites could not be relocated (CDFG 1994). By
1997, the Mezue site supported between 5,000 and 7,000 plants; 1 had
fewer than 300 plants; 4 had fewer than 100 plants; and 7 had no
plants. Most of the remaining sites were not checked since previous
multiple-year monitoring indicated that plants had disappeared from
those sites.
Although the information gathered from these seed transplant trials
has been valuable for understanding the life history of the plant and
how it responds to various types of management, the limited success of
establishing viable populations means that these transplant sites have
a limited value for maintaining the viability of the species compared
to the native populations. The seeded populations of tarplant are
threatened to some extent by competition with artichoke thistle and
non-native grasses.
One of the most prevalent forms of habitat alteration occurring
within the coastal prairie habitat of Santa Cruz tarplant is the
conversion of the flora from one comprised primarily of native grasses
to one comprised primarily of non-native grasses. As discussed in
factors A and C above, the conversion of native habitats to grazing
lands enhances the opportunity for non-native grasses to be introduced
and disseminate into the surrounding areas. Because many non-native
grasses germinate early and seed prolifically, they may quickly gain a
competitive advantage over native grasses (Heady 1977, McClintock
1986). Field survey reports show that non-native grasses have become
prevalent, and thus represent a potential threat, at the following
sites for Holocarpha macradenia--Arana Gulch, Twin Lakes, Tan,
Watsonville Airport, Harkins Slough, Struve Slough, Spring Hills,
Porter (CNDDB 1997, Taylor 1990).
The Struve Slough site, which until 1989 supported one of the
largest populations of Santa Cruz tarplant, is currently dominated by
non-native species, primarily wild oat, prickly lettuce, and wild
fennel. Before 1989, grazing by cattle had favored the presence of
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and quaking grass (Briza maxima) on the
site; cattle grazing was removed in 1989. Although a seed bank for
Santa Cruz tarplant still exists on the site, the plant has not been
seen since 1994.
The seeded populations of tarplant are also threatened to some
extent by competition with non-native species, particularly artichoke
thistle and non-native grasses. This thistle, the wild variety of the
edible artichoke, modifies habitat for the tarplant by virtue of its
large size, its allelopathic properties (chemical inhibition of growth
of other plants), and by creating shade (Kelley and Pepper, in press).
Other weedy characteristics of the artichoke thistle include its
ability to resprout vigorously from a perennial taproot, extended
flowering, seed production, and germination seasons, and the ability to
germinate and grow rapidly in a variety of environmental conditions
(Kelley and Pepper, in press). Apparently, artichoke thistle was
introduced to the area around Benicia, only a few miles north of the
Regional Park, in the 1880s; by the 1930s, 70,000 acres in the hills
around the east and north side of San Francisco Bay were infested with
the artichoke thistle (Ball in Thomsen et al. 1986).
Starting in 1996, the Regional Park, with the County of Alameda,
initiated an artichoke thistle removal program using herbicides.
Although sites that support tarplant are a priority for artichoke
thistle removal, the abundance of artichoke thistle in adjacent areas
facilitates reestablishment into already treated areas.
Non-native grasses also occur with tarplant at the six seed
transplant sites. All six sites are also grazed by cattle. If non-
native grasses become too abundant, they outcompete the tarplant.
Cattle grazing decreases the abundance of non-native grasses; however,
at one of the sites (Big Belgum), an increase in cattle grazing was
thought to be the cause of a declining tarplant population (CDFG
1995b).
French broom is another non-native species that threatens
Holocarpha macradenia. French broom is very aggressive, spreads
rapidly, and easily colonizes disturbed areas such as roadsides and
recently cleared land. Like artichoke thistle, French broom can
eventually form dense thickets that displace native vegetation (Habitat
Restoration Group (HRG) n.d.). French broom occurs at the following
sites that support Holocarpha macradenia--Arana Gulch, Graham Hill
Road, Twin Lakes, Tan, and Fairway Drive (CDFG 1997, HRG 1996).
So much of the coastal prairie habitat that supports Holocarpha
macradenia has been altered, fragmented, or destroyed that most of the
remaining habitat supports only very small populations, both in numbers
of individuals and in acreage. Species with few populations and
individuals are vulnerable to the threat of naturally occurring events
causing extinction in several ways. First, the loss of genetic
diversity may decrease a species' ability to maintain fitness within
the environment, often manifested in depressed reproductive vigor.
Secondly, species with few populations or individuals may be subject to
forces that affect their ability to complete their life cycle
successfully. For example, the loss of pollinators may reduce
successful seed set. Thirdly, random, natural events, such as storms,
drought, or fire could destroy a significant percentage of a species'
individuals or entire populations. Also, the restriction of certain
populations to small sites increases their risk of extinction from
naturally occurring events. Of the 12
[[Page 15149]]
native sites, the Watsonville Airport site is the largest, supporting
200,000 to 400,000 plants on 37 acres. The Struve Slough site formerly
supported 400,000 individuals on 4 acres, but had declined to a single
individual in 1994. The Spring Hills Golf Course site supports up to
3,500 plants on 13 acres. The Porter Ranch site used to support 43,000
plants on 10 acres, but the population had declined to fewer than 100
plants in 1996. The Arana Gulch site supported 20,000 plants on 5 acres
in 1997. The remaining seven native sites support approximately 1 acre
or less of occupied habitat; of these, at least two (Twin Lakes, Tan)
had no plants in 1997. Of the 6 seed transplant sites in Wildcat Canyon
Regional Park in the east San Francisco Bay area, 1 supported a
population of 6,000 to 7,000 individuals, and the remaining 5 supported
between 17 and 148 individuals. Olsen estimates that each of these
sites covers 1 to 3 acres, and that the total area of all six sites is
between 10 and 20 acres (B. Olsen, biologist, EBRPD, pers. comm. 1997).
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this taxon in determining to propose this rule.
Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Holocarpha
macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant), as threatened. This species is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range due to habitat alteration and
destruction resulting primarily from urban and commercial development,
invasion of its habitat by non-native vegetation due to cattle grazing,
limited success of seed transplant populations, competition with non-
native plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to
low numbers of individuals. Although a few of the remaining native
populations are on City, County, or State-owned lands, most of them are
on private lands. Conservation efforts to date have shown that this
species may be maintained by applying intensive management techniques.
These efforts will be most effective on sites where acreage of
remaining habitat is large, support naturally large populations, and
are secure from threats. Although conservation efforts have been
prescribed as part of mitigation for a number of development projects,
the small acreage, small population sizes, and physical proximity of
threats lessen the chance that such efforts will lead to secure, self-
sustaining populations at these sites. Therefore, the preferred action
is to list Holocarpha macradenia as threatened. Critical habitat is not
being proposed for Holocarpha macradenia for the reasons discussed
below.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A)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
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied 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(a)) require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.
Critical habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant is determinable. Although
additional information would be useful, sufficient information
concerning the physical and biological features of the tarplant's
habitat exists to determine critical habitat (CNDDB 1997, CDFG 1995a,
CDFG 1995b, Palmer 1986).
Critical habitat can be designated for suitable, but unoccupied,
habitat of listed species. There are no opportunities to do so for the
Santa Cruz tarplant because sites where it historically occurred have
all been rendered unsuitable. Sites where plants have been regularly
seen, but not on the most recent inspection, are assumed to have viable
seed banks, and cannot be considered ``unoccupied.'' Similarly, because
the six seed transplant populations on park land (owned by East Bay
Regional Parks District) have been at best moderately successful, the
Service is unable to conclude that these sites are suitable to the
plant. The transplant sites thus are not appropriate for designation as
critical habitat.
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--(i) the species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (ii) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The Service finds that designation of critical habitat for the Santa
Cruz tarplant is not prudent because it would provide no additional
benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing it as
threatened. The basis for this conclusion, including the factors
considered in weighing the benefits against the risks of designation,
is provided below.
As discussed above, 8 out of 12 extant native populations occur
predominantly on private land, and 4 are on City, County or State land.
Because Santa Cruz tarplant is State-listed, activities occurring on
these private and public lands are subject to State regulations. For
populations that occur within Santa Cruz County outside of City limits
(Graham Hill Road, O'Neill/Tan, Winkle, Fairway Drive, Harkins Slough,
Struve Slough, Spring Hills Golf Course), activities are also subject
to ordinances through the Local Coastal Program and General Plan. The
Porter Ranch population is subject to ordinances through the County of
Monterey. Because there is no Federal assistance to, or regulation of
activities (i.e., a Federal nexus) on these privately owned sites,
designation of critical habitat would provide no benefit to the Santa
Cruz tarplant in addition to that provided by listing. Federal
involvement, should it occur, would be identified without the
designation of critical habitat because interagency coordination
requirements (e.g. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the
Endangered Species Act) are already in place. Designating critical
habitat would not create a management plan for the plant, establish
goals for its recovery, nor directly affect areas not designated as
critical habitat. Additionally, the designation of critical habitat,
which does not affect private landowners, may distract these landowners
from, or discourage their participation in State and local conservation
programs. Landowner participation in these programs is essential to the
long term conservation and recovery of the Santa Cruz tarplant.
Designation of critical habitat on private land would therefore not
merely provide no benefit to the tarplant, but would actually create a
needless risk.
For the 4 native populations on City, County, or State lands,
policies of the various agencies involved regarding protection and
conservation of sensitive species apply. The Twin Lakes population is
on park land owned by CDPR; the Arana Gulch population occurs on park
land owned by the City of Santa Cruz. The Apple Hill
[[Page 15150]]
population occurs on land owned by CALTRANS. The Watsonville Airport
population is owned by the City of Watsonville. In addition to these
four populations, a portion of the O'Neill/Tan population occurs on
park land owned by the County of Santa Cruz. All of these populations
are currently recognized for conservation purposes by their managers,
or progress is being made toward such recognition (as at Watsonville
Airport). There is currently no Federal nexus at any of these sites. A
Federal nexus could emerge at the airport if federally-funded
construction is proposed, but the airport population's importance to
the conservation of the species (it is the largest population in
existence) assures that virtually any adverse effect at the airport
would very likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Santa Cruz
tarplant. Thus, designation of critical habitat at any of the publicly-
owned sites would provide no additional benefit.
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 States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out 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 is being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) 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. No
Federal agency involvement has been identified at this time.
Listing of this plant as threatened will provide for the
development of a recovery plan. Such a plan will bring together
Federal, State, and local efforts for its conservation. The plan will
establish a framework for cooperation and coordination in recovery
efforts. The plan will set recovery priorities and estimate costs of
various tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also will describe site-
specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and
survival of Holocarpha macradenia.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by
50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, applies. These prohibitions, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession
the species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for
plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or
destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal,
cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State
criminal trespass law. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the provision
of such protection to threatened species through regulation. This
protection may apply to Holocarpha macradenia in the future if
regulations are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens of
threatened plant species are exempt from these prohibitions provided
that their containers are marked ``Of Cultivated Origin.'' Certain
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also provide for the
issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened plant species under certain
circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. For threatened
plants, permits also are available for botanical or horticultural
exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with
the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated that few trade permits would
ever be sought or issued because this species is not in cultivation or
common in the wild. Requests for copies of the regulations on listed
species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, 911 NE
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6131, FAX
503/231-6243).
The Service adopted a policy on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to
identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is
proposed for listing 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 on
proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. The Service
believes that, based upon the best available information, the following
actions will not result in a violation of section 9, provided these
activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and
permit requirements:
(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, land use
activities that would significantly modify the species' habitat,
wetland and riparian habitat modification, flood and erosion control,
residential development, recreational trail development, road
construction, hazardous material containment and cleanup activities,
prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, pipelines or utility
line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in
accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the
Service according to section 7 of the Act; or when such activity does
not occur in habitats suitable for the survival and recovery of
Holocarpha macradenia and does not alter the hydrology or habitat
supporting this plant.
(2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g.,
bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, hiking).
(3) Activities on private lands (without Federal funding or
involvement), such as grazing management, agricultural conversions,
wetland and riparian habitat modification (not including filling of
wetlands), flood and erosion control, residential development, road
construction, pesticide/herbicide application, and pipelines or utility
lines crossing suitable habitat.
(4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of
vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.
[[Page 15151]]
The Service believes that the actions listed below might
potentially result in a violation of section 9; however, possible
violations are not limited to these actions alone:
(1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal lands;
(2) Application of herbicides violating label restrictions;
(3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without
previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct
activities are available for purposes of scientific research and
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as changes in
land use, will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed
to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Fish and
Wildlife Service will follow its current peer review policy (59 FR
34270) in the processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought
concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species; and
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on this species.
Final promulgation of the regulations on this species will take
into consideration the comments and any additional information received
by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation
that differs from this proposal.
The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the
date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such
requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the Field
Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 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
This rule does not contain collections of information that require
approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Constance Rutherford,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805/644-
1766).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
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.
4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend 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
* * * * * * *
Holocarpha macradenia............ Santa Cruz tarplant. U.S.A. (CA)........ Compositae......... T ........... NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15152]]
Dated: March 17, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-8052 Filed 3-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P