[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60237-60276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23843]
[[Page 60237]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 191
October 2, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetle From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60238]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0063; FXES11130900000C6-123-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AV29
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle From the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This action is based on a review of the best available scientific and
commercial data, which indicates that the subspecies no longer meets
the definition of endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposed rule, if made final, would
remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle as a threatened species
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and would remove
the designation of critical habitat for the subspecies. This document
also constitutes our 12-month finding on a petition to delist the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
DATES: We will accept comments until December 3, 2012. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by November 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter FWS-R8-ES-2011-0063,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. On the search results
page, under the Comment Period heading in the menu on the left side of
your screen, check the box next to ``Open'' to locate this document.
Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting
your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box,
please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your
comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft
Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our
preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0063; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This document contains: (1) A 12-month finding in response to a
petition to delist the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle); and
(2) a proposed rule to remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle as
a threatened species from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, and to remove the designation of critical habitat.
Species addressed. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), is found within the Central Valley
of California. At listing, it was known from 10 occurrence records at 3
locations: Merced County, Sacramento County, and Yolo County.
Currently, it is known from 201 occurrence records at 26 locations,
including much of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys from Shasta
County in the northern Sacramento Valley to Kern County in the southern
San Joaquin Valley. This subspecies is a wood borer that is dependent
on its host plant, the elderberry (Sambucus species), which is a common
shrub component of riparian forests and adjacent upland vegetation
along river corridors of the Central Valley.
Purpose of the Regulatory Action. Under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), we may be petitioned to list, delist, or
reclassify a species. In 2010, we received a petition from the Pacific
Legal Foundation requesting that the Service remove the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, which is currently listed as a threatened
species under the Act, from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. In 2011, we published our 90-day finding on the
petition, which concluded that the petition contained substantial
information that delisting the beetle may be warranted. Therefore, we
also announced that we were initiating a status review for this
subspecies as required under the Act. As the result of that status
review, we find that delisting the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is
warranted, and we propose to remove the beetle from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and remove designated critical
habitat.
Basis for the Regulatory Action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We reviewed all available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the five threat factors in our status review of the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The results of our status review are
summarized below.
While there are minimal surveys to comprehensively
evaluate current presence or population trends over time, we believe
the available data are sufficient to conclude that the beetle persists
in several more locations that were not known at the time of listing
under the Act, some of which are either restored or protected, or both.
Records since listing show the beetle may currently occupy most of the
26 locations identified and continues to persist in these locations, as
is expected for some period of time into the future.
Notwithstanding data uncertainties and the absence of
protections or enhancements at many locations, we believe sufficient
habitat will remain within this range into the foreseeable future, and
the subspecies no longer meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act. Varying levels of protections have been
applied to 15 of the 23 locations discovered since listing (10
locations contain well-protected lands and portions of 5 other
locations are managed for natural and open space values), and
management is being applied to occupied and unoccupied sites within
these locations
[[Page 60239]]
(including habitat restoration to increase the amount of suitable
habitat for potential use by the beetle). Additionally, we believe the
beetle will continue to persist based on: (1) The increase in number of
beetle occurrence records; (2) increase in number of locations where
the beetle is found, including over a larger range than what was known
at the time of listing; (3) past and ongoing riparian vegetation
restoration; and (4) persistence of elderberry shrubs in restored
areas, as well as on a variety of public lands managed for natural
values as open space.
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting from this proposal to be based
on the best scientific and commercial data available, and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from other governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Location-specific information concerning the cause and extent
of past, recent, and projected future losses of total riparian
vegetation and elderberry shrubs within the 26 individual river or
watershed systems (referred to hereafter as locations) considered in
this document to be, or to have previously been, occupied by the
beetle, including the north Central Valley (Sacramento River; Thomes,
Stony, Big Chico, Butte, Putah, and Cache Creeks; Feather, Yuba, Bear,
and lower American Rivers; and the upper American River vicinity and
the Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks vicinity) and the south Central Valley
(Cosumnes River and vicinity, including Laguna and Dry Creek; Mokelumne
River and vicinity, including Bear River; the lower Stanislaus River;
upper Stanislaus hills vicinity, including the foothill systems between
and around New Melones and Don Pedro Reservoirs; the Calaveras,
Tuolumne, Merced, Kings, Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and San Joaquin Rivers;
and Caliente Creek).
(2) Location-specific information (including Geographic Information
System (GIS) data or tabular geographic coordinate data) on the range,
distribution, population size, or population trends of the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, with particular emphasis on data collected
since, or not included in, our 2006 5-year review.
(3) Location-specific information on protections in each of the
above-mentioned locations (river systems or watersheds) with emphasis
on discerning the geographic locations and extent of protected and
unprotected areas, including, but not limited to: vegetative
allowances, vegetative maintenance, monitoring programs with adaptive
management actions, conservation easements, public land ownership and
associated permanent protections, and any other form of location-
specific protection.
(4) Location-specific information regarding male specimen
observation and subspecies identification, with particular interest in
recently reported locations in the eastern portion of the range in
foothill elevations.
(5) Location-specific information on future anticipated level of
threat of additional habitat loss, and the source of such loss (such as
agricultural and urban development, or flood control). Where threats
are not yet elevated in the absence of formal protection, we seek
information on rationales for why threats may or may not be elevated in
the future. We also seek information on future reduction in threats of
habitat loss, where appropriate.
(6) Information, including geographic coordinates of the locations,
about any additional populations of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle in other locations not considered in this proposed rule, or
regarding the loss of previously existing populations.
(7) Information on all other threats, such as from scientific study
of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, inferred from study of a
similar species, or location-specific threats information, including
potential impacts from predators such as the Argentine ant, effects of
small population size, and pesticides.
(8) New information and data on the projected and reasonably likely
impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle associated with climate
change.
(9) Documentation of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of current
mitigation, habitat restoration, and other conservation measures,
particularly those mentioned in Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 46-48, tables
2.3.1.1-2.3.1.2 (available at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/VELB_5yr_review_Talley_etal.pdf); and, specifically, location-specific quantities of riparian
vegetation (length, area, and proportion of the overall location
conserved or restored), beetle habitat (elderberry shrubs) in
particular, and occupancy of that habitat by the subspecies.
(10) Information on the spatial extent of occupation within
locations at which the beetle has been observed in relation to habitat
and threats within these areas.
(11) Location-specific information on the present quantity of
riparian vegetation, elderberry within riparian vegetation, and
elderberry within the watershed or vicinity, but not associated with
riparian vegetation.
(12) Information regarding how best to conduct post-delisting
monitoring, should the proposed delisting lead to a final delisting
rule (see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview section below, which
briefly outlines the goals of the draft plan that is available for
public comment concurrent with publication of this proposed rule). Such
information might include suggestions regarding the draft objectives,
monitoring procedures for establishing population and habitat
baselines, or for detecting variations from those baselines over the
course of at least 10 years.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule (and associated draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan) by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by
email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a
comment via http://www.regulations.gov, we will post your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written comments provide personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include
sufficient information with your comment to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial data you submit.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as
[[Page 60240]]
well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule and the draft PDM plan. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. A peer review panel will conduct
an assessment of the proposed rule and draft PDM plan, and the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting. This
assessment will be completed during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle was proposed as a threatened
species with critical habitat on August 10, 1978 (43 FR 35636). A rule
re-proposing critical habitat was issued on May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29373),
to comply with amendments made to the Act. A final rule listing the
beetle as threatened and designating critical habitat was published in
the Federal Register on August 8, 1980 (45 FR 52803). A final Recovery
Plan was approved for the beetle on June 28, 1984 (Service 1984, pp. 1-
62). On July 7, 2005, we announced in the Federal Register that we were
initiating 5-year reviews for 31 listed species, including the beetle
(70 FR 39327). Information from the public was accepted until September
6, 2005. On November 3, 2005, we announced in the Federal Register an
extension of the period for submitting information to be considered in
the 5-year review to January 3, 2006 (70 FR 66842). The Service
completed a 5-year review on September 26, 2006, that recommended the
Service delist the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The 5-year review
is available to the public on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/VELB%205-year%20review.FINAL.pdf.
Petition History
On September 13, 2010, we received a petition dated September 9,
2010, from the Pacific Legal Foundation, as representative for
Reclamation District Number 108, et al., requesting that the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle be removed from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such, and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The
petition included the Service's 5-year review as supporting information
(Service 2006a). On August 19, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in
response to the Pacific Legal Foundation's petition stating that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting the valley elderberry longhorn beetle may be
warranted (76 FR 51929). This proposed rule also constitutes our 12-
month finding for the petition to delist the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle. As the result of our status review, we find that delisting the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle is warranted, and we propose to
remove the beetle from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
and remove designated critical habitat.
Species Information
Description and Basic Biology
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle) (Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus) is a medium-sized red and dark green (to red
and black) insect approximately 0.8 inch (in) (2 centimeters (cm))
long. It is endemic to the Central Valley of California (Fisher 1921,
p. 207; Doane et al. 1936, p. 178; Linsley and Chemsak 1972, p. 7). The
similar-looking California elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus
californicus californicus) is primarily known from coastal regions of
California (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 104). The two subspecies can be
identified with certainty only by adult male coloration, where males of
the listed subspecies have predominantly red elytra with four dark
spots, whereas males of the common, unlisted subspecies (California
elderberry longhorn beetle) have dark metallic green to black elytra
with a red border. The ranges of the two subspecies may abut or overlap
along the foothills of the eastern Coast Range and the southern San
Joaquin Valley; dark males have also been noted in Placer and Yolo
Counties (Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 5-6). Beetles meeting the
description of the California elderberry longhorn beetle have also been
recorded in the Sierra Nevada foothills as far north as Mariposa County
(Halstead and Oldham 2000, pp. 74-75), suggesting that the ranges of
the two subspecies may also abut or overlap in that area.
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is a wood borer, dependent on
(and found only in association with) its host plant, the elderberry
(Sambucus spp. of the Caprifoliaceae [honeysuckle] family) (Barr 1991,
p. 4; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 104). The elderberry is a common shrub
component of riparian forests and adjacent upland vegetation along
river corridors of the Central Valley (Hickman 1993, pp. 474-475;
Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995, pp. 171, 229; Halstead and Oldham 2000, p.
74). Adult beetles feed on elderberry nectar, flowers, and foliage, and
are generally active from March through June (Eng 1984, p. 916; Barr
1991, p. 4; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105). They are uncommon (see
``Occurrence Information and Population Size and Distribution'' below)
and rarely observed, despite their relatively large size and
conspicuous coloration.
The females lay eggs, singly or in small groups, on the leaves or
stems of living elderberry shrubs (Barr 1991, p. 4). The larvae hatch
in a few days, and bore into living stems that are at least 1 in. (2.5
cm) in diameter. The larvae remain within the elderberry stem, feeding
on the pith (dead woody material) until they complete their
development. Each larva creates its own gallery (set of tunnels) within
the stem by feeding (Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 8-9). The larva
eventually cuts an exit hole out of the stem, but plugs the hole up
again from within using wood shavings. This allows the beetle to
eventually exit the stem after it becomes an adult, as the adults are
not wood borers. The larva remains within the stem, becomes a pupa, and
finally emerges from its single exit hole as an adult between mid-March
and mid-June (Lang et al. 1989, p. 242; Barr 1991, p. 5; Talley et al.
2006a, p. 9). There is thus one exit hole per larva. The complete life
cycle is thought to take either 1 or 2 years (depending on the amount
of time the larva stays in the elderberry stem), with adults always
emerging in the spring. Adults live from a few days to a few weeks
after emerging, during which time they mate and lay their eggs (Talley
et al. 2006a, p. 7). Shrub characteristics and other environmental
factors appear to have an influence on use by the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle in some recent studies, with more exit holes in shrubs
in riparian, than nonriparian, scrub habitat types (Talley et. al.
2006a, p. 18), and increased beetle colonization of larger shrubs (and
greater beetle extinction from smaller shrubs) (Zisook 2007, p. 1).
[[Page 60241]]
Lost Historical Range
Although there are insufficient valley elderberry longhorn beetle
records to directly assess changes in distribution from historical
times to the present, it is probable that beetle habitat distribution
was coarsely related to the extent of riparian forests of which the
host plant, elderberry, is often a component. However, we note that
elderberry does not occur in all areas where riparian vegetation
exists. Thus, we are unable to provide an accurate assessment of
potential lost historical range of valley elderberry longhorn beetle
habitat; rather, estimates are based on historical losses of riparian
vegetation.
Historically, California's Central Valley riparian forests have
experienced extensive vegetation loss during the last 150 years due to
expansive agricultural and urban development (Katibah 1984, p. 23).
These Central Valley riparian forests include those along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys that comprise the north and south
range, respectively, of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, as
discussed in detail below in ``Occurrence Information and Population
Size and Distribution.'' Since colonization, these forests have been
``* * * modified with a rapidity and completeness matched in few parts
of the United States'' (Thompson 1961, p. 294). As of 1849, the rivers
and larger streams of the Central Valley were largely undisturbed
(Thompson 1961, p. 305), supporting continuous bands of riparian
woodland 4 to 5 mi (6.4 to 8 km) wide along some major drainages such
as the lower Sacramento River, and generally about 2 mi (3.2 km) wide
along the lesser streams (Thompson 1961, p. 307). Most of the riverine
floodplains supported riparian vegetation to about the 100-year flood
line (Katibah 1984, p. 25). A large human population influx occurred
after 1849; however, much of the Central Valley riparian vegetation was
rapidly converted to agriculture and used as a source of wood for fuel
and construction to serve a wide area (Thompson 1961, p. 311). By as
early as 1868, riparian woodland had been severely affected in the
Central Valley, as evidenced by the following excerpt:
This fine growth of timber which once graced our river
[Sacramento], tempered the atmosphere, and gave protection to the
adjoining plains from the sweeping winds, has entirely disappeared--
the woodchopper's axe has stripped the river farms of nearly all the
hard wood timber, and the owners are now obliged to rely upon the
growth of willows for firewood. (Cronise 1868 in Thompson 1961, p.
312).
Based on the historical riparian woodlands information summarized
in the paragraph above, we conservatively estimate that over 90 percent
of that riparian vegetation in the Central Valley has been converted to
agriculture or urban development since the middle of the 1800s
(Thompson 1961, pp. 310-311; Katibah et al. 1984, p. 314). We also note
that estimates of historical riparian vegetation loss in the Central
Valley and acreage of current riparian vegetation vary. Based on a
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) riparian vegetation
distribution map, about 102,000 ac (41,278 ha) out of an estimated
922,000 ac (373,120 ha) of Central Valley riparian forest remained at
the turn of the century (Katibah 1984, p. 28). This represents a
decline in acreage of approximately 89 percent as of 1979 (Katibah
1984, p. 28). Another source indicates that 132,586 ac (53,656 ha) of
riparian vegetation remained across the Central Valley in 2003
(Geographic Information Center 2003, p. 14), which represents a 50
percent decline since 1960. More extreme figures are provided by Frayer
et al. (1989, pp. ii), who reported that approximately 85 percent of
all wetland acreage in the Central Valley was lost before 1939; and
that from 1939 to the mid-1980s, the acreage of wetlands dominated by
forests and other woody vegetation declined from 65,400 ac (26,466 ha)
to 34,600 ac (14,002 ha). Differences in methodology may explain the
differences between these estimates. In any case, the historical loss
of riparian vegetation in the Central Valley strongly suggests that the
range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle has been reduced
(because elderberry is a component of riparian vegetation), and its
distribution has been fragmented.
For the purposes of this analysis, we are utilizing what we believe
is a reliable estimate for remaining riparian vegetation within the
Central Valley (i.e., 132,586 ac (53,656 ha) as reported by Geographic
Information Center (2003)); this value will be used as a reference
point when discussing impacts to remaining riparian vegetation in this
document. The causes of this lost historical riparian vegetation are
described in the following paragraphs as background information for
this discussion on valley elderberry longhorn beetle's lost historical
range. Causes of ongoing and future loss of riparian vegetation within
the range of the beetle are discussed below in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species.
The historical clearing of riparian forests for fuel and
construction in the Central Valley made this land available for
agriculture (Thompson 1961, p. 313). Natural levees bordering the
rivers, which once supported vast tracts of riparian vegetation, became
prime agricultural land (Thompson 1961, p. 313). As agriculture
expanded in the Central Valley, needs for increased water supply and
flood protection spurred water development and reclamation projects.
Artificial levees, river channelization, dam building, water diversion,
and heavy groundwater pumping have further reduced riparian vegetation
to small, isolated fragments (Katibah 1984, p. 28). In recent decades,
these riparian areas in the Central Valley have continued to decline as
a result of ongoing agricultural conversion, urban development, and
stream channelization. As of 1989, there were more than 100 dams within
the Central Valley drainage basin, as well as thousands of miles of
water delivery canals and stream bank flood control projects for
irrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, hydroelectric
power, flood control, navigation, and recreation (Frayer et al. 1989,
p. 5). Riparian forests in the Central Valley have dwindled to
discontinuous strips of widths measurable in yards rather than miles.
Between 1980 and 1995, the human population in the Central Valley
grew by 50 percent, while the rest of California grew by 37 percent
(American Farmland Trust 2011). The Central Valley's population was 4.7
million in 1999, and it is expected to more than double by 2040
(American Farmland Trust 2011). The American Farmland Trust estimates
that by 2040, more than one million cultivated acres will be lost and
2.5 million more put at risk (American Farmland Trust 2011). With this
growing population in the Central Valley, increased development
pressure could affect native vegetation communities.
A number of studies have focused on riparian vegetation loss along
the Sacramento River, which supports some of the densest known
populations of the beetle. Approximately 98 percent of the middle
Sacramento River's historical riparian vegetation was believed to have
been extirpated by 1977 (DWR 1979, entire). The State Department of
Water Resources estimated that native riparian vegetation along the
Sacramento River from Redding to Colusa decreased 34 percent from
27,720 ac (11,218 ha) to 18,360 ac (7,430 ha) between 1952 and 1972
(Conard et al. 1977, p. 47). The average rate of riparian loss on the
middle Sacramento River was 430 ac (174 ha) per year from 1952 to 1972,
and 410 ac (166 ha) per year from 1972 to 1977 (Conard et al. 1977, p.
47).
[[Page 60242]]
There is no comparable information on the historical loss of beetle
habitat (i.e., the component of riparian vegetation that contains
elderberry, which includes elderberry savanna and other vegetation
communities where elderberry occurs, such as oak or mix-chaparral
woodland, or grasslands adjacent to riparian vegetation). However, all
natural habitats throughout the Central Valley have been heavily
impacted within the last 200 years (Thompson 1961, pp. 294-295), and it
can, therefore, be concluded that beetle habitat also has declined.
Accordingly, loss of beetle habitat (also described in literature as
nonriparian vegetation where elderberry occurs), and of specific areas
where the beetle has been recorded (Barr 1991, entire), further
suggests reduction of the beetle's range and increased fragmentation of
its upland habitat.
We cannot conclude that the losses of riparian and aquatic
vegetation described in this section are representative of the lost
historical habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, because
we have no way of knowing which of these lost areas were actually
historically occupied by the beetle.
Occurrence Information and Distribution
Historically and currently, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
is rarely observed (although we expect infrequent observations because
there is infrequent survey data). For example, survey efforts conducted
by Barr (1991, pp. 45-46), Collinge et al. (2001, p. 107), and Talley
et al. (2006a, p. 11) have documented very few adult valley elderberry
longhorn beetles. Consequently, the past and current presence of
beetles in a given area is usually established based on the presence of
recent or old exit holes in elderberry stems (Jones & Stokes 1987, p.
2; Barr 1991, p. 12). Recent exit holes (made within the current year)
are typically distinguishable from holes made in previous years by the
presence of wood shavings and light-colored wood within the hole. Thus,
trained surveyors are generally able to distinguish current beetle
presence from presence of the beetle in previous years (Collinge et al.
2001, p. 105). Trained surveyors are also typically able to distinguish
between exit holes made by the beetle and exit holes made by other
species of wood borers (Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 9-10; River Partners
2007, p. 7). However, exit holes made by the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle are not distinguishable from exit holes made by the California
elderberry longhorn beetle, except by inference, based on where the
observation occurred within the range of either beetle (River Partners
2007, p. 9).
When the valley elderberry longhorn beetle was listed in 1980, it
was known from 10 occurrence records at three locations: the Merced
River (Merced County), the American River (Sacramento County), and
Putah Creek (Yolo County) (45 FR 52805, August 8, 1980; Service 2006a,
p. 5; Talley et al. 2006a, p. 23). Subsequent survey efforts have
expanded our knowledge of the beetle's range to include much of the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys, from Shasta County in the northern
Sacramento Valley to Kern County in the southern San Joaquin Valley,
California. Currently, 201 beetle occurrence records are identified in
the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), in addition to some
other records not yet reported to CNDDB (CNDDB 2010, pp. 1-202; Table
1). The CNDDB is an electronic inventory of observation records for
California's rare plants, animals, and communities, managed by CDFG
(CDFG 2009, p. 1).
In Table 1, we present information for 201 occurrence records
representing 26 locations that we believe represent the best available
data regarding the distribution of this subspecies. These selected
records include all of the major riparian systems within the Central
Valley proper and a few foothill systems immediately above major
reservoirs. We do not include 12 occurrence records from other riparian
systems (i.e., they are not included in Table 1 nor are they discussed
further in this rule), because we do not regard them as verified for
various reasons, including that they: Are isolated records that contain
extremely limited habitat; occur exclusively at higher elevations
adjacent to the range of the California elderberry longhorn beetle
(Oakhurst vicinity, Auberry vicinity, North Fork Willow Creek, Mariposa
Creek, Los Banos Creek, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, North
Fork Feather River); are extirpated (Middle River); represent a single
shrub in rural development (Dixon); contain records from dead wood or
old exit holes only (Honcutt Creek, Paynes Creek); or occur in a
location within heavily maintained channels (Chowchilla). Additionally,
there are also locations (Deer Creek, Battle Creek) that are
represented by a single non-CNDDB report, and are not discussed.
Table 1--Locations and Occurrence Records of the Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle in the North and South Central Valley of California \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Locations (north to south) \2\ occurrence Years of occurrences
records \3\ \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.a. Sacramento River (SR), 10 87, 89, 91, 03A,
Redding-Red Bluff. 08A.
1.b. SR, Red Bluff-Chico.......... 13(3) 85, 86, 87, 91,
(00A), 01A, (03),
(10).
1.c. SR, Chico-Colusa............. 18(1) 86, 87, 88, (03),
06.
1.d. SR, Colusa-American River 7 85A.
confluence.
1.e. SR, American River confluence 2(1) 05A, 06A, (08).
south.
2. Thomes Creek................... 1 91, absent 97.
3. Stony Creek.................... 1 91, absent 97.
4. Big Chico Creek................ 2(1) 91, 97, (10).
5. Feather River.................. 6(1) 85, 91, (07), 10A.
6. Butte Creek.................... 4 93, absent 91, 95,
absent 97.
7. Yuba River..................... 7 98.
8. Bear River..................... 4(2) 91, 98, 03, (04A,
10A).
9. Lower American River........... 11(4) 84A, 85A, 90A, 95A,
96, 00, 08A, (02,
03, 04,10).
10. Upper American River vicinity 8 84, 91, 02, 10.
(Miner and Secret Ravine, Coon,
Anderson and Linda Creeks)
(foothill location >1,000 ft
elevation).
11. Putah Creek................... 4(2) 82A, 91A, 95, 00A,
(04, 10).
12. Cache Creek................... 7 91, 01A, 07A.
[[Page 60243]]
13. Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks.... 6 91, 02, 04, (08).
14. Cosumnes-Laguna-Dry Creeks.... 7(3) 64A, 84, 87, 91,
(02, 03, 04).
15. Mokelumne-Bear Rivers......... 6 84, 91A, 06.
16. Stanislaus River.............. 4(1) 84A, 85, 89, 91,
(10).
17. Upper Stanislaus hills 6 99, 00, 02A, 07A.
(vicinity above and between New
Melones and Don Pedro Reservoirs,
including Sullivan Creek)
(foothill location >1,000 ft
elevation).
18. Calaveras River-Stockton 5 84A, 91, 00.
Diverting Canal.
19. Tuolumne River................ 4 84, 91, 99.
20. Merced River.................. 3(1) 85, 86, 90A, absent
91, (10).
21. Kings River................... 18 89A, 90A, 91, 94,
98A, absent 10.
22. Kaweah River.................. 5 37, 86A, 91, 94.
23. Tule River-Deer Creek......... 5(1) 91A, 93, (10).
24. Kern River (excluding Caliente 1(2) 91, (08, 10).
Creek).
25. Caliente Creek (foothill 3 91.
location >1,000 ft elevation).
26. San Joaquin River............. 3(1) 84, 89, 92, 04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-CNDDB source information includes survey from review of a
section 7 consultation, literature sources such as Holyoak and Graves
2010, River Partners 2007, Collinge et al. 2001, and Talley 2005, and
other verified sources (such as information from scientific experts or
Service biologists who have evaluated data for accuracy) compiled in a
GIS database by the Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
\2\ The locations presented in this table are based on available data
that provide detailed information about valley elderberry longhorn
beetle presence. Additional locations were not included in this table
due to a lack of sufficient information that provides certainty on
valley elderberry longhorn beetle presence (see preceding text for
explanation).
\3\ Occurrence records are a combination of CNDDB source data and non-
CNDDB source data, the latter of which is presented as a value between
parentheses. For example, the Big Chico Creek location has a total of
three occurrence records, including two from CNDDB source data and one
from non-CNDDB source data.
\4\ Data provided in this column show: (1) Years when surveys were
conducted and beetles were found (e.g., ``99'' indicates that beetle
evidence was observed in the year 1999, or ``90A'' indicates adult
beetles were observed in 1990), and (2) years when surveys were
conducted and beetles or evidence of beetles were not found (e.g.,
``absent 91'' indicates that a survey was conducted in 1991 but no
beetles or evidence of beetles were observed). Additionally, there
could be existing known locations, or new locations (in addition to
the 26 locations listed in this table) where valley elderberry
longhorn beetles occur today, but it is uncertain because we know of
no recent surveys that have been conducted.
An occurrence (or ``element occurrence'') is a term used in the
CNDDB to refer to an observation at a location where a species has been
documented to occur, such as a sighting of a valley elderberry longhorn
beetle, or of an exit hole (recent or otherwise), that indicates
possible presence of the subspecies. CNDDB data do not represent the
results of a systematic survey, but rather reflect a compilation of
observations from multiple contributors and studies over time.
Depending on information provided by contributors, many beetle
occurrence records are merely points on the map, whereas others include
information regarding the size of the occupied area. Beetle occurrences
are distributed across the Central Valley, generally occurring singly
and in small, relatively isolated clusters along river corridors.
Noticeably larger clusters of beetle records occur along the northern
portions of the Sacramento River (around Tehama, Glenn, and Butte
Counties), along the lower American River (primarily in Sacramento
County), and along the Kings River (in Fresno County). One hundred and
twenty-five beetle occurrences have been recorded in the northern
portion of the Central Valley (north of the line formed by the southern
boundaries of Sacramento and Amador Counties), as compared with 76
south of that line. CNDDB presumes all 201 occurrences in the Central
Valley are currently extant (CDFG 2007, p. 4). Based on this
information, we understand these occurrences to be currently extant.
This rule uses the term ``occurrence'' to refer to the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle observations reported in CNDDB records. We
use the terms ``site'' and ``survey site'' to refer to a specific local
area that is surveyed for evidence of beetle presence (Barr 1991, pp.
9, 19; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105). We use the term ``location'' to
refer to the river system, major river reach, or watershed vicinity in
which several records in general proximity to one another may occur.
The number and area of occurrences do not necessarily indicate the
number and size of interbreeding populations (defined as groups of
interbreeding valley elderberry longhorn beetles). This is because
CNDDB generally groups sightings of beetles or exit holes within 0.25
mi (0.4 km) of each other into the same occurrence (CDFG 2009, pp. 2-
3). In addition, while beetle movement is restricted, dispersal is
believed to occur over a scale of around 12 mi (20 km), and
metapopulations (a set of partially isolated subpopulations between
which dispersal is limited) form at a scale of 25 mi (40 km) or less,
within which there can be many occurrences (Collinge et al., 2001, p.
108; Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 10-11). Beetles may, or may not, persist
in any given elderberry shrub within an occurrence, or may inhabit more
or fewer elderberry shrubs over time, but there is rarely documentation
of these temporal changes to an occurrence. Although CNDDB presumes all
occurrences in the Central Valley are extant, CNDDB generally does not
identify an occurrence as extirpated, or possibly extirpated, unless it
receives positive information (such as complete loss of habitat) to
indicate the population is no longer at the site (CDFG 2007, p. 4).
Occurrence records are thus primarily useful for demonstrating the
extent of a species' range, and the general distribution within that
range, as well as for noting information such as the date the species
was last seen at a given location.
The infrequency of sampling data, and particularly the lack of
recent sampling, makes it difficult to precisely determine population
size and distribution of this subspecies. Dates last seen range from
1937 to 2008, with the vast majority occurring in the late 1980s and
early 1990s (Service 2007, p. 11). For most of these sites, the date
the subspecies was last seen and the date
[[Page 60244]]
the site was last visited are the same, possibly because of the
infrequency with which sites are resurveyed. Only 26 of the CNDDB
occurrence records are from 2000 or later. Regardless, data collected
have shown a larger distributional range and a greater number of known
occurrences when compared to the time of listing. We considered all
information in the CNDDB and other sources not yet reported to the
CNDDB to evaluate the subspecies' range and occurrences.
Although the majority of valley elderberry longhorn beetle
occurrence records are those recorded in CNDDB, other occurrence
records (not necessarily reported to the CNDDB) originate from projects
reviewed under section 7 or section 10 of the Act, monitoring of
elderberry plantings, and a few location-specific surveys (see below,
this section). There are not a large number of records from any of
these other sources. The most extensive of these other records are from
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) units along the Sacramento River north
of Colusa. For example, in 2003, while monitoring elderberry shrubs
planted at five Sacramento River NWR units, surveyors found 449 beetle
exit holes in 299 (3.8 percent) of the 7,793 shrubs surveyed (River
Partners 2004a, pp. 2-3; Talley et al. 2006a, p. 51), which were
represented across all 5 refuge units surveyed. A greater percentage of
beetle exit holes were found at sites with older elderberry plantings
or near existing riparian vegetation (River Partners 2004a, pp. 4-5).
Another example of beetle information beyond CNDDB records includes
section 7 consultations. A total of 500 section 7 consultations dating
since 2000 have been conducted because project sites contained riparian
vegetation that may support the beetle (and potentially beetle
habitat); 13 were reported to contain exit holes. Only 1 of these 13
observations was in the south Central Valley (Kern River). Outside of
CNDDB, adult beetles have been observed six times at monitoring,
restoration, or mitigation sites in the north Central Valley (Feather,
Bear, and Sacramento River areas).
Within the range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, local
beetle populations tend to be sporadic, small, and clustered,
independent of the availability of larger areas of mature elderberry.
For example, a study conducted in 1985-1987 focused on areas of native
riparian vegetation along 183 mi (295 km) of the Sacramento River
floodplain north of Sacramento. Researchers found that 95 percent of
surveyed sites contained elderberries, while exit holes (old and
recent) occurred in 64 percent of surveyed sites (Lang et al. 1989, pp.
243, 246). Lang et al. (1989, pp. 243-245) also found that habitat
occupancy was substantially higher at the northern end of the study
area, which is consistent with the pattern of distribution in the
occurrence records. In the 48 river miles north of Chico Landing, 94
percent of study sites were occupied, while occupancy declined to 28
percent for the 85-mi (137-km) reach between Colusa and Sacramento. The
authors noted that this pattern reflected the fact that riparian
vegetation below Colusa was confined by levees to narrow strips,
whereas between Colusa and Chico Landing setback levees allowed wider
areas of riparian vegetation, and above Chico Landing habitat was
unconstrained by levees.
Barr (1991) conducted an extensive study of riparian vegetation in
1991 along major rivers and streams in both the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Valleys, and the adjacent foothills. Barr (1991, pp. 15, 42)
found evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle occupancy (recent
and old exit holes) in 28 percent of surveyed sites (64 of 230 sites),
and in about 20 percent of the 504 groups of elderberry shrubs examined
at those sites (each site had one to several shrub groups). The author
noted general observations (such as rarity of the beetle and clustered
nature of occurrences (Barr 1991, p. 49)), and specific results that
include recent exit holes occurring at only 14 percent of sites
surveyed (33 of 230 sites). In 1997, Collinge et al. (2001, p. 105)
resurveyed 65 of the 79 sites that Barr (1991) had surveyed (25 of
which showed evidence of occupancy) in the Sacramento Valley portion of
the 1991 study. Collinge et al. (2001, p. 105) found that 20 percent of
surveyed sites (13 of 65 sites) had recent exit holes, while 46 percent
(30 of 65 sites) had either recent or old holes (Collinge et al. 2001,
p. 107). The repetition of the earlier study further supported the
relatively rare and clustered nature of beetle presence. Because the
two surveys were completed using the same methods, the study also
allowed a limited assessment of temporal changes in beetle presence or
absence (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105), which is further discussed
below under the ``Population Status and Trends'' section.
Evaluating available data on old and recent valley elderberry
longhorn beetle exit holes to aid in the determination of current
occupancy of locations and current distribution across the subspecies'
range has proven difficult. For example, in the San Joaquin Valley
surveyors for two recent studies along the Stanislaus and San Joaquin
Rivers found relatively recent beetle exit holes at six sites (Kucera
et al. 2006, pp. 7-10, 12; River Partners 2007, pp. 9-11).
Unfortunately, the two studies did not define ``recent'' the same way.
One study (River Partners 2007, p. 8) included ``old'' recent holes
with worn margins, while the other (Kucera et al. 2006, p. 4) followed
the sampling methodology of Talley (2005, p. 14), which identifies
``recent'' holes as having crisp margins and minimal evidence of
healing.
Beetle occupancy appears to be lower in the south Central Valley as
compared to the north Central Valley. In the south Central Valley,
Kucera et al. (2006, pp. 4-9) surveyed approximately 153 mi (246 km) of
the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence with the Merced
River, and found 1 shrub with 6 recent exit holes and 16 shrubs with a
total of 122 nonrecent holes. The recent holes, and all but three of
the nonrecent holes, were located within 22 mi (35 km) of Friant dam
(Kucera et al. 2006, pp. 8-9). Also in the south Central Valley, River
Partners (2007, p. 1) surveyed 59 mi (95 km) of the Stanislaus River
from Goodwin Dam to the confluence with the San Joaquin River, as well
as 12 mi (19 km) of the San Joaquin River from the confluence with the
Stanislaus River up to the confluence with the Tuolumne River. River
Partners (2007, pp. 10, 26, 28, 38, 40, 42, 49) found one site with
recent exit holes, four sites with both recent and nonrecent holes, and
one site with nonrecent holes. However, two of the five sites with
recent exit holes were high enough in elevation in the Sierra foothills
that the surveyors considered it possible that the exit holes had been
made by either valley elderberry longhorn beetles or California
elderberry longhorn beetles (River Partners 2007, pp. 9, 26, 28).
Numbers of recent exit holes at each site in the two studies ranged
from 0 to 6 (Kucera et al. 2006, pp. 4, 8, 9) and 0 to 44 (River
Partners 2007, pp. 10, 26, 28, 38, 40-43), showing the difficulty of
comparing results across nonstandardized surveys.
In summary, multiple factors limit our ability to draw direct
comparisons between all studies and over time, but, taken together,
these studies consistently indicate a patchy distribution of the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle throughout its range. As discussed above,
the earliest study (Lang et al. 1989, pp. 242, 246) did not distinguish
between old and new exit holes in determining that a site was actively
occupied by beetles, while most of the later studies relied on the
[[Page 60245]]
presence of recent holes in determining occupancy of extant populations
(Barr 1991, pp. 46, 47; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 107; Kucera et al.
2006, pp. 7-11; River Partners 2007, pp. 8, 11, 16). Additionally,
survey timing varied between studies and often overlapped the beetle's
emergence period. Despite these differences in survey methodology,
species experts have determined that the beetle is patchily distributed
throughout its range, even where suitable habitat is present (Barr
1991, p. 49; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 107; River Partners 2007, p. 23).
The beetle occurs in clusters (Barr 1991, p. 49), with small
populations everywhere that it occurs (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 107).
Most occupied sites are located in the northern portion of the range
along the Sacramento River (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 111). Site
occupancy by the beetle appears to be higher in the northern Central
Valley and lower in the south Central Valley (Kucera et al. 2006, pp.
ii, 10). The reasons for patchy beetle distribution patterns and the
low occupancy in the south Central Valley generally remain unclear, but
appear to go beyond what may be explained by the simple presence or
absence of elderberry shrubs. Thus, population characteristics such as
patchy distribution and low occupancy in the south Central Valley,
coupled with the infrequency of sampling data and, particularly, the
lack of recent sampling, make it difficult to precisely determine
population size and distribution of this subspecies.
Population Status and Trends
There are no long-term population data available for the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle; rather, the only available data are the
CNDDB occurrence records and limited records from other sources (Table
1). The Collinge et al. (2001) study attempted to provide information
relevant to population trends by surveying and comparing the same sites
within the Sacramento Valley as had been surveyed 6 years earlier by
Barr (1991), using the same survey methods. They found fewer occupied
groups of elderberry shrubs at each site (on average) because the
average density of elderberry shrubs had decreased (Collinge et al.
2001, pp. 108, 109; Talley et al. 2006a, p. 13). The authors did not
offer reasons for the observed decrease of elderberry bush density.
For comparisons regarding valley elderberry longhorn beetle site
occupancy, Collinge et al. (2001, pp. 106-107) identified four types of
changes evident from comparison of the 1991 and 1997 surveys: short-
term extinctions (recent exit holes in 1991, no recent exit holes in
1997), short-term colonizations (no recent holes in 1991, recent holes
in 1997), long-term extinctions (holes of any age in 1991, no holes in
1997), and long-term colonizations (no holes in 1991, holes of any age
in 1997). Collinge et al. (2001, pp. 106-107) related findings on both
short- and long-term changes because they felt that the long-term
values tended to underestimate actual numbers of extinctions and
colonizations, whereas the short-term values tended to overestimate
them. For instance, they noted that a local extinction would not
register as a long-term extinction if old holes remained in the area.
Similarly, because the beetle can remain as a larva in an elderberry
stem for up to 2 years, a survey for exit holes during a given year
might miss its presence and thus register as a short-term extinction.
We also note that the number of short-term extinctions and
colonizations is subject to additional error based on timing of
surveys, because the Barr (1991) and Collinge et al. (2001) surveys
were conducted from April to July (Barr 1991) or April to June
(Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105), while the adult beetles emerge (and
thus create new exit holes) from mid-March to mid-June (Talley et al.
2006a, p. 9). In other words, an error documenting beetle presence
could occur in a given year because (for example) beetles could
potentially emerge in June after a survey is conducted in April.
The overall trend of valley elderberry longhorn beetle occupancy
was moderately downward when comparing the 1991 and 1997 survey data
(described above), as indicated by both short- and long-term
extinctions and colonization sites with elderberry shrubs and by
occupied shrub groups within each site (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 13).
Collinge et al. (2001, pp. 107-108) reported that of 65 sites with
mature elderberry visited in both surveys, 9 sites suffered short-term
extinctions while 6 underwent short-term colonizations. They also
related two long-term extinctions, as compared to four long-term
colonizations. However, as Talley et al. (2006a, p. 13) noted, there
were actually 9 long-term extinctions out of 72 sites that Barr had
surveyed in 1991, because 7 of those sites had lost all their
elderberry shrubs between studies (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105), and
so were not included in the statistics reported by Collinge et al.
(2001, p. 107). According to Collinge et al. (2001, p. 110), the
location discussed in this rule that exhibited no recent holes at any
site in 1997, but did so in 1991, is Stony Creek. Several other entire
watersheds with multiple elderberry sites examined revealed no beetles
in either 1991 or 1997 (Paynes, Deer, and Butte Creeks). Collinge et
al. (2001) did not identify the sites (or systems) lacking elderberry;
however, Barr (1991, pp. 20-21, 25) did identify drainages without
elderberries at any site examined (Cow, Battle, Cottonwood Creeks;
Colusa and Sutter Basins). Barr (1991, p. 47) also noted eight
localities where there was no sign of the beetle (exit holes or adults)
where it had been previously reported.
Collinge et al. (2001) suggested that each drainage surveyed
functions as a relatively isolated valley elderberry longhorn beetle
metapopulation, separated from other such metapopulations by distances
of 25 mi (40 km) or more (Collinge et al. 2001, pp. 108-110; Talley et
al. 2006a, p. 10). Occupied sites within each metapopulation were found
to be subject to extirpation, and also to recolonization from other
occupied sites in the drainage within 12 mi (20 km) (Collinge et al.,
2001, p. 108). Accordingly, Collinge et al. (2001, p. 112) recommended
that a proportion of occupied sites within a 12-mi (20-km) distance be
considered in decisions regarding loss of riparian vegetation and
placement of newly restored habitat for the beetle. Collinge et al.
(2001, p. 110) concluded that, due to limited dispersal among
metapopulations, when all the beetles in an entire drainage are
extirpated, the drainage is unlikely to be naturally recolonized.
Of the 14 drainages surveyed by both Barr (1991) and Collinge et
al. (2001), 7 were occupied by valley elderberry longhorn beetles in
1991. Six of those seven were found to still be occupied in 1997
(Collinge et al. 2001, pp. 106, 108; Talley et al. 2006a, p. 11). We
note however that rather than surveying every elderberry shrub and
branch, Collinge et al. (2001, p. 105) randomly selected distinct
groups of elderberry shrubs to survey at each site.
In summary, minimal trend information exists related to valley
elderberry longhorn beetle's rangewide population status. Collinge et
al. (2001, pp. 106-107) identified four types of changes evident from
comparison of the 1991 and 1997 surveys that included both short- and
long-term extinctions and colonizations. Available survey data from
Collinge et al. (2001) indicate that some river or watershed systems
continue to harbor the beetle while others may not. However, because
Collinge et al. (2001) did not survey all potential beetle habitat at
each location, the beetle could still be present at
[[Page 60246]]
locations where it appears to be absent. Holyoak and Graves (2010, p.
20) found that because the beetle's local population levels and
densities are typically very low, sampling levels must be very high in
order to detect large population declines within a watershed.
Regardless of extinctions or colonizations, each watershed system that
is occupied by the beetle may serve as an isolated metapopulation with
limited dispersal capabilities; thus the ability for natural
recolonization (following an extirpation event) within an individual
watershed system may be unlikely (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 110).
Recovery Planning and Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to
achieve the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria, which when met, would result in
a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the list; and
(3) Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan.
Revisions to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a
species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections
4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) that requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or
not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Objective,
measurable criteria, or recovery criteria contained in recovery plans,
must indicate when we would anticipate an analysis of the five threat
factors under 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that a species is
no longer endangered or threatened. Section 4(b) of the Act requires
the determination made be ``solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.''
While recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when
recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Determinations to remove a
species from the list made under section 4(a)(1) of the Act must be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
of the determination, regardless of whether that information differs
from the recovery plan.
In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species,
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being
fully met. For example, one or more recovery criteria may have been
exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the
Service may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized
sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, that the Service may
reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist
the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that recovery criteria need to be met for
recognizing recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a
dynamic process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing,
and evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may
not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is ultimately
based on an analysis of whether a species is no longer endangered or
threatened.
When the Service completed the final Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in 1984 (Service 1984, pp. 1-62),
there was little information regarding the beetle's life history,
distribution, and habitat requirements to develop specific recovery
objectives (Service 1984, p. 21). The development of these objectives
was left for a later date (Service 1984, p. 39), and the Recovery Plan
instead described four primary interim objectives (Service 1984, pp.
22). This was followed by an outline and narrative (referred to as the
Step-Down Outline that includes many discrete recovery actions),
including three of the four primary interim objectives, and four
additional objectives that are interpreted as recovery actions (these
latter four additional objectives are further described below in the
section titled ``Additional Recovery Objectives.'') The determination
of delisting criteria is considered a discrete action within the
Recovery Plan's narrative, Step 3--Determine ecological requirements
and management needs of VELB (Service 1984, pp. 35-39). The four
primary interim objectives were (Service 1984, p. 22):
(1) Protect the three known locations of the beetle;
(2) Survey riparian vegetation along certain Central Valley rivers
for the beetle and habitat;
(3) Protect remaining beetle habitat within its suspected
historical range; and
(4) Determine the number of sites and populations necessary to
eventually delist the species.
In the following paragraphs, we address the extent to which the
four primary interim objectives (criteria) have been accomplished.
Primary Interim Objective 1--Protect the Three Localities of Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetles
The intent of this primary interim objective was to ensure that the
three localities of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle known at the
time the Recovery Plan was written in 1984 (American River in
Sacramento County, Putah Creek in Yolo and Solano Counties, and Merced
River in Merced County) would continue to sustain the subspecies and
the necessary habitat components on which the subspecies depends at
those locations.
The Recovery Plan states that the American River sites may be
adequately protected through provisions of the American River Parkway
Plan (Service 1984, p. 32). The River Corridor Management Plan for the
Lower American River (Lower American River Task Force 2002, p. 94)
refers to a future funded action to develop a valley elderberry
longhorn beetle management plan that would include mapping,
identification of stressors, and management protocols to avoid impacts.
More recently, the American River Parkway Plan (County of Sacramento
2008) refers to an Integrated Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan
as pending, and references the 2002 Lower American River Corridor Plan
for interim guidance. It includes generalized measures to maintain the
beetle and its habitat into the foreseeable future (Talley et al.
2006a, p.
[[Page 60247]]
61; County of Sacramento 2008, pp. 9, 17, 52). Habitat supporting the
American River beetle population is intended by respective local
jurisdictions to remain as open space in which natural values are
maintained and enhanced. These areas are important public recreational
areas, and so, are not without localized manmade disturbances such as
trail maintenance and trampling, but overall are not presently at risk
of loss to agricultural or urban development. However, the 2002 Lower
American River Corridor Plan does not identify specific monitoring or
reporting requirements, remedial actions to address remaining threats,
or the mechanism by which the plan goals are to be funded and
implemented over the long term.
Similar guiding documents have been developed for Putah Creek,
which may (if implemented) maintain the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle at publicly accessible locations, where management focuses on
maintaining natural habitat rather than protecting the beetle
specifically (University of California at Davis 2005, pp. 24-33, App.
A, p. 1; Gates and Associates 2006, pp. 13-15; Talley et al. 2006a, p.
61; University of California at Davis 2009, pp. 24-29). Portions of
Putah Creek are in parkland while the remaining privately owned areas
are not currently developed. Similar to the American River Parkway
Plan, the Putah Creek Management Plan lacks specificity on monitoring,
reporting, and funding.
The Recovery Plan states that the beetle location on the Merced
River is from the McConnell State Recreation Area (Service 1984, p.
31). Evidence of the beetle (exit holes) was not observed by Barr
(1991), but was noted in a 2010 non-CNDDB record (Table 1). We are
unaware of the status of management of beetle habitat at this site.
Primary Interim Objective 1--Achievement Evaluation and Summary
Completion of Primary Interim Objective 1, with respect to the
original intent of the Recovery Plan, would be represented by three
locations that are preserved or protected with a reduction of threats
to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its habitat. Threats would
be addressed through ongoing management actions outlined in respective
management plans. The Recovery Plan describes long-term administrative
actions appropriate to protect and secure known colonies, to include
coordinated long-term agreements (such as cooperative agreements,
memoranda of understanding, or conservation easements) among primary
resource management agencies (such as California Department of Water
Resources, California Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, County governments, and
private landowners) (Service 1984, p. 30).
This objective is partially met by management planning efforts
along the American River and Putah Creek; we are uncertain of the
status of protection and management planning and implementation at the
Merced River location. The development of management plans that
emphasize open space and natural values for riparian areas that support
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle along the American River Parkway
and Putah Creek are considered beneficial to the beetle and its habitat
into the future. As we discuss in further detail below, parklands such
as these are facing increased pressures from human use as population
centers have expanded since listing, and management plans lack
sufficient specificity with respect to the subspecies or its host plant
to ensure long-term persistence. We are unaware of regular monitoring
of beetles or elderberry shrubs in these areas, from which recovery
might be assessed. While there is no monitoring of beetles or
elderberry shrubs in these areas, nor funding targeted on restoration
or enhancement specifically for the beetle and its habitat, the beetle
derives long-term benefit and prospects for persistence at these sites
from management emphasis on maintaining riparian vegetation on the
American River and Putah Creek.
Primary Interim Objective 2--Survey Riparian Vegetation Along Certain
Central Valley Rivers for Additional Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Colonies and Habitat
As discussed throughout this document, the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle was known at the time of listing from only three
locations. Since listing, observations of the beetle have been recorded
at 26 locations throughout the Central Valley (Table 1). The occurrence
of additional populations was anticipated in both our listing rule and
Recovery Plan (Service 1980, p. 52804; Service 1984, p. 32). The
Recovery Plan recommended surveys within the suspected range of the
beetle along portions of the Sacramento, Feather, Tuolumne, Stanislaus,
Mokelumne, Calaveras, Cosumnes, and San Joaquin Rivers (Service 1984,
pp. 23, 32-35). The intent of this interim objective was to document
the existence of additional populations so that they could then be
protected as described in Primary Interim Objective 3.
Primary Interim Objective 2--Achievement Evaluation and Summary
Achievement of this objective with respect to the original intent
of the Recovery Plan is represented by completion of surveys in the
above-named locations that resulted in the reporting of 23 additional
locations of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle throughout the
Central Valley. Many of these surveys are old, and the subspecies would
benefit from further survey information throughout the Central Valley
to update information and provide guidance for additional protection
and restoration actions, as was originally contemplated in the Recovery
Plan. The subspecies is more widespread than had been documented at the
time of listing. The cumulative increase in beetle occurrences and
increase in the known range of the subspecies in the Central Valley is
considered sufficient to meet the original intent of Primary Interim
Objective 2.
Primary Interim Objective 3--Protect Remaining Beetle Habitat Within
Its Suspected Historical Range
The intent of this recovery criterion was to ensure that newly
discovered valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat would be
protected. The Recovery Plan (Service 1984, p. 40) describes
administrative actions to protect newly discovered habitat, including a
cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to conduct surveys for valley elderberry
longhorn beetle for activities they permit in riparian areas, as well
the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act.
Of the 23 locations discovered since the Recovery Plan was
prepared, 10 contain well-protected lands such as State or Federal
wildlife areas, or areas with conservation easements (Bear River,
Cosumnes River, Feather River, Sacramento River, Stony Creek, Big Chico
Creek, Butte Creek, Tuolumne River, Kaweah River, and San Joaquin
River). Portions of five locations are managed for natural and open
space values, are partially on city parks or Forest Service lands, and
have current protections against urban development, but no specific
protections for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or elderberry
shrubs (Big Chico Creek, Lower Stanislaus River, Kings River, Upper
Stanislaus Hills, and a portion of the Kaweah River upstream of Lake
Isabella). The remaining locations, or
[[Page 60248]]
portions of locations, are on lands without protections, some of which
are private lands or designated floodways that experience activities
that may adversely affect the beetle (primarily vegetation suppression
from bank protection and vegetation removal on levees and within
floodway channels), or protections are unknown. This includes some
sections of the Sacramento River from Colusa to the American River
confluence, Thomes Creek, Yuba River, Upper American River, Cache
Creek, Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks, Upper Stanislaus Hills, Calaveras
River-Stockton Diverting Canal, Mokelumne-Bear Rivers, Kings River,
Tule River-Deer Creek, Kern River, and Caliente Creek.
Primary Interim Objective 3--Achievement Evaluation and Summary
Achievement of criterion 3 with respect to the original intent of
the Recovery Plan would be represented by protection of the remaining
suitable habitat at newly discovered occupied beetle locations. This
criterion is considered partially met because the protections discussed
in our Recovery Plan have been applied to all or portions of 13 of the
23 newly discovered locations. Protections at all or portions of 12
locations described above are either lacking or unknown. Some locations
have varying degrees of protection in different areas and have been
counted in more than one category. Several of the newly discovered
localities are now preserved and managed for at least the conservation
of natural values associated with riparian vegetation, including, if
not specifically for, the beetle. Such management is being applied to
occupied and unoccupied sites within these locations. Management
activities at these locations include habitat restoration to increase
the amount of suitable habitat for potential use by the beetle. We
consider Primary Interim Objective 3 to be partially met.
Primary Interim Objective 4--Determine the Number of Sites and
Populations Necessary To Eventually Delist the Species
The intent of this primary interim objective was to utilize the
results of surveys and other information to determine the areal extent
and number of populations of valley elderberry longhorn beetle that
would be needed to delist the subspecies. Our 1984 Recovery Plan stated
that this would be determined (Service 1984, p. 39) ``in part * * * by
the remaining habitat and beetles found during survey work.'' Thus, the
delisting criteria would not be solely based on survey information, but
also based on information derived from other actions described in the
step-down narrative, including but not limited to, life history,
population structure, limiting factors, adult behavior, site-specific
management needs, tests of the effectiveness of various management
practices, and other factors. To date, specific delisting recovery
criteria have not been developed.
Primary Interim Objective 4--Achievement Evaluation and Summary
A greater number of beetle occurrences have been discovered than we
previously anticipated, which has resulted in a total of 26 locations
known today compared to 3 locations known at the time of listing. The
new detections of the beetle in riparian vegetation throughout the
Central Valley (as compared to only Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and
Merced Counties at the time the Recovery Plan was written) have altered
our understanding of the subspecies' range and distribution. This
improved understanding, together with restoration, habitat management,
and protection implemented at various locations to date, have led us to
determine that the beetle can persist without the protections of the
Act. The status review and five-factor analysis contained in this
proposed rule provide the information on which our delisting proposal
is based.
Additional Recovery Objectives
As discussed above in this section, the Recovery Plan described
four primary interim objectives (Service 1984, p. 22). The Recovery
Plan also includes an outline and narrative (referred to as the Step-
Down Outline), which contains four additional recovery objectives that
are interpreted as recovery actions. These four additional recovery
objectives (hereafter referred to as additional recovery actions) are a
sample of the actions outlined in the narrative of the Recovery Plan
that have been implemented for the benefit of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle. The four additional recovery actions summarized here
are directly related to the primary interim objectives and include: (1)
Determining the beetle's ecological requirements and management needs,
(2) reestablishing the beetle at rehabilitated sites, (3) increasing
public awareness of the beetle, and (4) enforcing existing laws and
regulations protecting the beetle (Service 1984, pp. 22-26). A summary
of our evaluation of these additional recovery actions is shown in the
following four paragraphs, thus providing information for the public on
the extent to which we have implemented and completed these actions.
1. Determine the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's ecological
requirements and management needs. Significant progress has been made
in our understanding of the beetle's autecology, life history, and
habitat restoration, but aspects of the beetle's population dynamics
and dispersal remain less well understood (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 62).
The draft PDM Plan includes monitoring that will help address
deficiencies.
2. Reestablish the valley elderberry longhorn beetle at
rehabilitated sites. Rehabilitated sites can be divided into those
established in conjunction with incidental take of existing habitat
under section 7 of the Act, and those established without associated
incidental take. Approximately 400 to 1,900 ac (162 to 769 ha) of land
fall into the first category (i.e., rehabilitated sites associated with
section 7 consultation incidental take permits), based on a review of
110 out of 526 section 7 consultations involving the beetle (Service
2006a, p. 7). Of that restored habitat, about 43 to 53 percent (172 to
1,007 ac; 70 to 408 ha) has successfully been colonized by the beetle
(Holyoak and Koch-Munz 2008, p. 1; Holyoak et al. 2010, p. 50).
Approximately 4,000 ac (1,619 ha) of land fall into the second category
of rehabilitated sites (i.e., rehabilitated sites that are not
associated with incidental take permits) (see Factor A,
``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and Protection'' section below for
additional information on restored beetle habitat). The extent of that
restored habitat that has been colonized by the beetle remains unknown
at this time (Talley 2006a, p. 50).
3. Increase public awareness of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle. We maintain information on the beetle at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/Invertebrates/es_species-accounts_invertebrates.htm, and the University of California at Berkeley
maintains an informational Web site on the beetle (http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/desmocer.htm). Additionally, organizations
involved in habitat restoration for the beetle have occasionally
published relevant information in newsletters, press releases, and Web
sites (Community Business Bank 2008, p. 1; Environmental Defense 2010,
pp. 1-2; River Partners 2010, p. 2).
4. Enforce existing laws and regulations protecting the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle. As discussed below for current estimates
under the
[[Page 60249]]
Factor A, ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and Protection'' section,
approximately 21,536 ac (8,715 ha) of riparian vegetation have been
protected through either a conservation easement, riparian fee land
managed by CDFG, or public land known to be managed for conservation
values (such as Cosumnes River Preserve). Additionally, approximately
13,000 ac (5,261 ha) of riparian vegetation has been restored on
predominantly Federal and State lands, and other areas have had beetle
habitat restored, totaling approximately 12,400 ac (5,018 ha). Note,
however, that there is significant, albeit incomplete, overlap among
these vegetation estimates as further described in the current
estimates section under Factor A, ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration
and Protection.'' Regardless, these areas are subject to various laws
or regulations. For example, conservation easements are held by
qualified environmental protection organizations, and will be enforced
under the terms of California Civil Code sections 815 through 816.
Another example includes protection to riparian vegetation and beetle
habitat on NWR lands as a result of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (see ``Federal Protections'' section under
Factor D below). This refuge system legislation supports various
management actions that benefit valley elderberry longhorn beetle
through the mandatory development and implementation of Comprehensive
Conservation Plans.
Results of Recovery Plan Review
The Recovery Plan did not include recovery criteria, but did
include four primary interim objectives that were to be addressed
initially and used to develop recovery criteria. Our review indicates
that interim objective 1 is partially met by management and planning
efforts at two of the three originally known locations of the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle. Interim objective 2 is met because surveys
were conducted throughout the range of the subspecies and identified 23
additional locations at which the valley elderberry longhorn beetle was
present. However, much of this information is old, and additional
surveys should be conducted at these locations and others. Interim
objective 3 is considered partially met because the protections
discussed in the Recovery Plan have been applied to all or portions of
13 of the 23 locations discovered since listing (or since the Recovery
Plan was finalized). Interim objective 4 is considered partially met,
noting that recovery of species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive
management, planning, implementing, and evaluating the degree of
recovery of a species that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance
provided in a recovery plan. Notwithstanding data uncertainties and the
absence of protections or enhancements at some locations, there are a
significantly greater number of known occurrences and locations of the
beetle (resulting in a significantly greater range size as compared to
the time of listing) across the Central Valley. Based on our review of
the Recovery Plan for the subspecies and our review of the beetle's
status under section 4(a)(1) of the Act presented below, we are
proposing to remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). We may
determine a species to be an endangered or threatened species due to
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. The five listing factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same
five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according
to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best available scientific and commercial
data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for
the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has
recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened (as is the case
with the valley elderberry longhorn beetle); or (3) the original
scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in
error.
We took the following steps in order to examine the scale of
threats and potential for extinction for the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle within the 26 known beetle locations and as a whole:
(1) We compiled a rangewide GIS spatial database that included all
available information on beetle records, riparian vegetation, section 7
consultations, mitigation actions, conservation and other protection
actions (including specific plantings of elderberry shrubs), current
(year 2010) aerial imagery, roadways, and near-term population growth
(i.e., through the year 2020).
(2) We used the database (described in step 1 above) and supporting
information to synthesize a best professional opinion of the prospectus
for persistence with delisting at those locations, considering current
habitat; occupation records by location (presented previously in Table
1); threats; protections and recovery actions; and studies needed to
address uncertainties in species data, protections, threats, and
prospectus for persistence.
The five factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the Act and their
analysis in relation to the beetle are presented below (additional
discussion is presented in the Finding section below regarding these
threats within the context of the north Central Valley, south Central
Valley, and the subspecies as a whole across its range). This analysis
of threats requires an evaluation of both the threats currently facing
the subspecies and the threats that could potentially affect it in the
foreseeable future, following the delisting and the removal of the
Act's protections. The Act defines an endangered species as a species
that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (16 U.S.C. 1632(6)). A threatened species is one that is
likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1632(20)).
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the
status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is.
The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the risk of
extinction of the species, such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act.
However, the identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition
of endangered or threatened under the Act.
[[Page 60250]]
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
At the time of listing, habitat destruction was identified as one
of the most significant threats to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle (45 FR 52805, August 8, 1980; Eng 1984, pp. 916-917). This
section analyzes four threats that have been identified to impact, or
potentially impact, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle under Factor
A:
(1) Agricultural and urban development;
(2) Levees and flood protection;
(3) Road maintenance and dust; and
(4) Climate change.
We also include a discussion on the habitat restoration and protection
efforts afforded the subspecies in response to Factor A threats (see
``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and Protection'' below). Finally,
we note that Talley et al. (2006, pp. 44-46) also mentions pollution,
competition with invasives, and grazing as potential factors affecting
elderberry shrubs, which are both Factor A and E threats within the
context of this five factor analysis; however, none of these appear to
be well studied and are not identified as widespread threats.
Agricultural and Urban Development
As discussed above (``Lost Historical Range'' section), a
significant amount of riparian vegetation (of which a portion contained
elderberry shrubs) has been converted to agriculture and urban
development since the mid-1800s according to estimates by Thompson 1961
(pp. 310-311) and Katibah et al. 1984 (p. 314). For example, Lang et
al. (1989, p. 243) observed less riparian vegetation (as well as
significantly fewer sites occupied by the beetle) in the lower reach of
the Sacramento River (between Sacramento and Colusa), than in the
northern reach (Chico to Red Bluff). This decrease in riparian
vegetation was attributed to extensive flood control activities (which
are directly related to agricultural and urban development, and further
discussed in the Factor A, ``Threats--Levees and Flood Protection''
section below), predominantly carried out prior to the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle's listing, but some such activities have
occurred since listing and continue to occur today (CVFMPP 2010).
Although riparian vegetation in the Central Valley has been lost
over time, a number of areas have been restored to accommodate the
habitat needs and recovery of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
(riparian vegetation that specifically contains elderberry shrubs), as
described in detail in Factor A, ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration
and Protection'' below. To provide an indication of the amount of
beetle habitat lost and restored since the beetle's listing in 1980, we
reviewed Federal projects for which we conducted consultations for the
beetle under section 7 of the Act. As part of these consultations,
incidental take for the beetle was measured in terms of acres of
habitat impacted, because incidental take of beetles themselves could
not be determined due to the biology of the subspecies and difficulty
in monitoring it. From 1983 to 2006, the incidental take we authorized
amounted to roughly 10,000 to 20,000 ac (4,047 to 8,094 ha) of
potential beetle habitat (both occupied and suitable; suitable is
defined as habitat that contains mature elderberry shrubs with stems of
at least 1 in. (2.5 cm) in diameter), primarily for projects associated
with urbanization, transportation, water management, and flood control
(Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 31-34). See the Factor A, ``Levees and Flood
Protection'' section below for discussion of water management and flood
control activities.
Although incidental take authorized by section 7 consultations has
occurred throughout the current range of the subspecies, it has been
concentrated in areas predominantly developed prior to the subspecies'
listing under the Act. Additionally, not all of the incidental take
authorized by those section 7 consultations has been carried out, so
the number of actual acres of habitat lost is some unknown degree less
than the number of acres of habitat we anticipated (Talley et al.
2006a, p. 34). Incidental take authorized through the section 7
consultation process would have included elderberries associated with
both riparian and upland vegetation, as well as stems with, and
without, exit holes. Stems without exit holes are included because
absence of the beetle in a specific shrub cannot be determined with 100
percent certainty due to the fact that use of the elderberry by the
beetle is not always apparent (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 10).
In addition to evaluating section 7 Federal projects to provide an
indication of the amount of elderberry shrubs lost or restored since
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's listing, we reviewed the 20
incidental take permits issued to non-Federal entities (undertaking
otherwise lawful projects that might result in the take of an
endangered or threatened species) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
The majority of these permits minimally impacted the beetle or its
habitat (elderberry shrubs), and only eight of those permits are still
active. We issue these permits only upon our approval of a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that is developed, funded, and implemented by
the permittee, and that adequately minimizes and mitigates the effects
of incidental take associated with the proposed activity. Incidental
take associated with the 12 expired permits is estimated at less than
100 ac (40 ha) of beetle habitat. For the eight active permits, 4,808
ac (1,946 ha) of take is permitted, and all of the corresponding HCPs
contain elderberry shrubs and evidence of at least past occupancy (exit
holes) of the beetle within their boundaries (noting that at least one
known beetle location is addressed by each HCP). Section
10(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires HCP applicants to agree to mitigate
takings of identified species ``to the maximum extent practicable.''
These mitigation requirements are built into each HCP implementing
agreement, so even if the beetle is delisted they will continue to
apply within the bounds of the HCPs.
Unauthorized impacts to the beetle or elderberry host plant are
likely to have occurred, and the Service is aware of examples. Talley
et al. (2006, p. 34) report that most of this unauthorized activity is
unmonitored; some settlements have occurred, and none of these has been
pursued to the point of penalties or prosecution under the Act.
Conversion of agricultural lands to urban areas and direct
urbanization of natural areas that include riparian vegetation continue
to impact the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, because elderberry is
a minor component of the vegetation that grows (in some areas) along
existing irrigation channels, on hedgerows, and on, and adjacent to,
levees that provide flood control to this agriculture. Existing
agriculture continues to affect beetle habitat through suppression of
vegetation in, what are now, channelized tributaries and split channels
that function for drainage and irrigation. For example, vegetation
suppression occurs in channelized tributaries or split channels at
approximately two locations in the north Central Valley (Sacramento
River-Chico to Colusa and the Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks locations) and
more frequently at approximately six locations in the south Central
Valley (Lower Stanislaus hills, Calaveras River-Stockton Diverting
Channel, Merced River, Kings River, Kaweah River, and Caliente Creek).
Agricultural lands provide the additional benefit of buffering natural
lands, whereas urban land uses most often do not. Agricultural
development has probably reached close to its maximum extent in
[[Page 60251]]
the Central Valley. However, conversion of agricultural lands into
urban development continues at a significant rate (American Farmland
Trust 2011), and as a consequence, continues to affect beetle habitat
by eliminating elderberries along irrigation channels and hedgerows,
eliminating the buffering effect, and precluding the potential to
restore riparian forest vegetation (discussed further below). Current
conversion of agricultural lands (and subsequent elimination of
riparian vegetation and in some cases elderberry) is evident in the
north Central Valley (such as along the Sacramento River between Red
Bluff and Chico and the Yuba River) and south Central Valley (such as
the Calaveras River-Stockton Diverting Channel and the Kaweah River).
During the 1990s, the Central Valley experienced a decline of about
223,000 ac (90,245 ha) of high-quality farmland (American Farmland
Trust 2011). Although some of this is due to reclassification, about
100,000 ac (40,469 ha) is considered to have been urbanized (homes,
businesses, impervious surfaces) (American Farmland Trust 2011).
Between 2000 and 2002, 27,000 ac (10,926 ha) of farmland were urbanized
(American Farmland Trust 2011). Examples of light residential or rural
ranchette development since listing (most recent) are evident in areas
along as the Consumnes River (in the vicinity of the towns of Wilton
and Rancho Murieta), Bear River (east of Lodi, with documented 1984
valley elderberry longhorn beetle record), Cache Creek (north and
adjacent to the city of Woodland), the Kern River (expansion of
Bakersfield), and many other locations throughout the State. Most of
these developments have resulted in some direct loss of beetle habitat,
as evidenced by consultation actions.
In sum, losses of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat
associated with agricultural activities through conversion to urban
uses is likely to occur to some extent because elderberry is a minor
component of vegetation along irrigation channels, levees, and
hedgerows, and agriculture is a major land use adjacent to the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Many of the 26
locations in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, as well as to
areas outside of the 26 locations are affected by this activity.
However, compared to the past loss of beetle habitat that resulted from
flood control and agricultural development, future losses are likely to
result from progressive conversion of agriculture into urban growth.
The range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is now known to
be greater than at the time of listing, and it is known from 26
locations throughout the Central Valley. The bulk of habitat protection
and restoration activities have occurred in the northern Central Valley
locations. In the south Central Valley, where historical habitat losses
are believed to have been greater, a more limited quantity of protected
and restored beetle habitat exists. Even with consideration of the
restoration activities that have occurred in the subspecies' range (see
the Factor A, ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and Protection''
section below), the threat posed by agricultural and urban development
(including activities that impact the vegetation that grows along
existing irrigation channels, levees, etc.) may continue into the
future in both the north and south Central Valley as urban growth
places agricultural lands and associated riparian vegetation at further
risk.
Levees and Flood Protection
The flood protection system in California's Central Valley includes
about 1,600 mi (2,575 km) of Federal project levees, 1,200 mi (1,931
km) of designated floodways, 26 project channels covering several
thousand acres, and 56 other major flood protection works. Projects
that may have impacted, or could impact, valley elderberry longhorn
beetle habitat include: levee construction; bank protection;
channelization; facility improvements or ongoing maintenance
activities, including clearing and snagging; construction of bypasses;
and construction of ancillary features (such as overflow weirs and
outfall gates). Some of these projects or facilities predate Federal
authorization, and either meet, or are modified to meet (through
current or future activities), Federal standards. Many predate listing,
although some facilities have been constructed since listing, and
additional projects are proposed for imminent construction.
Construction and maintenance of these flood protection systems and
associated reservoir flood control facilities have resulted in direct
losses of riparian vegetation within project impact areas, and indirect
impacts in surrounding riparian vegetation due to agricultural and
urban development that resulted from flood protection (see Factor A,
``Agricultural and Urban Development'' above). Flood control facilities
are also subject to vegetative removal activities to maintain flood
capacity or alleviate perceived levee risks (see below).
Examples of past major activities in the north Central Valley
include the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (980 mi (1,577 km)
of levees); Sacramento River Major and Minor Tributaries (channel
enlargement of portions of Chico, Mud, Dandy Gulch, Butte, Little
Chico, Elder, and Deer Creeks); American River Flood Control Project
(18 mi (29 km) of levee); Sacramento River Chico Landing to Red Bluff
(increased bank protection); Lake Oroville-New Bullards Bar (reservoir
footprints); and the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project (915,000
linear feet (ft) (279 km) of bank protection in Phases I and II with
Phase III not yet specified). Examples of past major activities in the
south Central Valley include the Lower San Joaquin-River and
Tributaries project (major flood control activities) and the Mormon
Slough Project (levees, channel improvements, pumping plants). With the
exception of the Cosumnes River, major multi-purpose dams exist on both
north and south Central Valley mainstems and all major tributaries,
including those at the following locations: Lake Shasta, Black Butte
Lake, Folsom Lake, Lake Oroville, New Bullards Bar Reservoir, Lake
McClure, Don Pedro Reservoir, New Melones Lake, Pardee Reservoir,
Camanche Reservoir, New Hogan Lake, Bear River Reservoir, Owens
Reservoir, Mariposa Reservoir, H.V. Eastman Lake, Hensley Lake, and
Millerton Lake. Smaller dams exist in other locations within the range
of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Tributaries in the southern
portion of the south Central Valley (within the range of the beetle)
have also been affected by major dams on the Kings River (Pine Flat
Dam), Lake Success on the Tule River (Success Dam), and Kern River
(Isabella Dam).
Flood control activities are evident as current threats and appear
more frequently in the north Central Valley (such as the Lower American
River and Cache Creek locations) and less frequently in the south
Central Valley (such as Tule River-Deer Creek and San Joaquin River
locations). Information presented in the following paragraphs is a more
detailed account of potential impacts to remaining riparian vegetation
(that may or may not contain elderberry shrubs) at existing facilities,
including along levees, channels, etc., as previously introduced in the
section above (Factor A, ``Agricultural and Urban Development'').
Currently, the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) in California's
Central Valley is composed of 20 major projects along the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers and tributaries (CVFMPP 2010).
[[Page 60252]]
Projects within the Sacramento River basin include the following:
Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Sacramento River and Major and
Minor Tributaries Project, American River Flood Control Project,
Sacramento River-Chico Landing to Red Bluff, Adin Project, Middle Creek
Project, McClure Creek Project, Salt Creek Project, Lake Oroville
Project, Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, and North Fork
Feather River Project. Projects within the San Joaquin River basin
include the following: Lower San Joaquin River and Tributaries Project,
Buchanan Reservoir and Channel Improvement on Chowchilla River, Hidden
and Hensley Lake Project, Merced County Streams Project, Bear Creek
Project, Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River Stream Group Project,
Farmington Reservoir Project, and Mormon Slough Project. In addition to
routine as-needed maintenance or improvements of the completed projects
outlined above, other major activities or projects within the range of
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle are expected, including:
(1) Ongoing projects, such as the American River Watershed
Investigation, the Natomas Levee Improvement, and the West Sacramento
Levee Improvement Project;
(2) Projects under other Corps authorities, such as RD 17 Phase III
(San Joaquin River, north of Lathrop);
(3) Projects in the planning phase, such as the Feather River West
Levee Project (44 mi (71 km)) from Thermolito Afterbay to the Sutter
Bypass; and
(4) Projects under investigation but not yet authorized, such as
the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project (SRBPP) Phase III.
Riparian vegetation losses from development projects have been
compensated through a variety of restoration activities or protections
of land, as described in various places throughout this document (for
example, see the Recovery Planning and Implementation section (primary
Interim Objective 3) above, or ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and
Protection'' below). It is likely that these activities have benefitted
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its habitat.
We also anticipate that future actions will be implemented within
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's range to treat areas for flood
damage under emergency authority (Pub. L. 84-99) on an as-needed basis,
such as flood damage repairs made in 1997 and 1999. Past emergency
actions (often involving placement of rock revetment) and continued
maintenance since construction (which precludes or suppresses future
vegetation growth) have affected hundreds of sites and many miles of
river systems (such as the recent emergency levee repair conducted
along the Sacramento River (American River confluence south).
Maintenance practices are relatively frequent to achieve compliance
with the Corp's standard operating procedures (for processing
Department of the Army permit applications) and vary with location,
ranging from twice a year to once every 5 years, or more, depending on
specific site characteristics and need. These activities can damage or
remove vegetation that could potentially provide beetle habitat.
Trees and shrubs grow to a variable extent on most of the State-
Federal levees in the Central Valley; this vegetation (which in some
instances may include elderberry shrubs) provides an important remnant
of the riparian forest that once lined the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers and tributaries. Currently, there is no estimate of the acreage
of riparian vegetation on Central Valley levees and other flood
facility lands, nor of what portion of the riparian vegetation contains
elderberry shrubs. The California Department of Water Resources is in
the process of determining the acreage of woody vegetation on levees
using recent aerial photography of the entire flood control system.
This information was not available to us for analysis and consideration
in this proposed rule.
Ongoing and future maintenance of levees, channels, and other
facilities for purposes of flood control and agriculture may result in
future losses of riparian vegetation and associated valley elderberry
longhorn beetle habitat, or at least prevent establishment of
additional beetle habitat on, and immediately adjacent to, levees or
within channels that otherwise could benefit the beetle. The effect of
flood control and associated maintenance on riparian vegetation varies
somewhat with the extent of setback (if present) of the levee from the
water's edge, and the magnitude of maintenance activities within the
designated floodway. Although some locations do have vegetated areas on
or adjacent to the floodway (such as the American River, unleveed
portions of the Sacramento River from Red Bluff to Chico, Feather River
portions of east bank), many do not. Flood control activities, combined
with associated agricultural and urban development, are considered
largely responsible for the loss of riparian vegetation throughout the
beetle's range before and since listing, and also for the presence of
less riparian vegetation along the lower Sacramento River compared to
the upper Sacramento River. Specifically, the lower Sacramento River,
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Joaquin River contain areas that
are constrained by flood control levees and areas of urban and
agricultural development, thereby limiting future restoration
opportunities in those areas.
The California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Flood
Protection Board; previously known as the Reclamation Board) oversees
the Central Valley's flood control system, and has jurisdiction over
the floodplains and levees on both sides of the waterways. For more
than a decade, the Flood Protection Board has generally denied permits
for projects that involve planting elderberry shrubs in floodplain
areas between levees, because the Board is concerned that additional
beetle habitat could interfere with, or delay, flood prevention
measures (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 46). The Flood Protection Board is
also concerned that flood prevention measures might damage valley
elderberry longhorn beetle habitat and thereby lead to costly impact
minimization requirements, such as habitat restoration. To date,
restoration of beetle habitat has not been allowed within their
facilities (River Partners 2003, p. 4; 2004b, p. 4); however,
restoration or other minimization measures for vegetation loss has
occurred at other locations within the range of the beetle.
Since listing, there have been nationwide changes to Corps flood
control system maintenance requirements. Specifically, on April 10,
2009, the Corps issued Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-571
(Guidelines For Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees,
Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures). This ETL
standard establishes a vegetation-free zone for the top of all levees
and levee slopes, and 15 ft (4.5 m) on both the water and land sides of
levees (which could potentially eliminate occupied or unoccupied
elderberry shrubs that may be present). Currently, and in specific
cases, the Corps provides for the potential issuance of variances from
the standard vegetation guidelines in the ETL, which in turn provides
opportunities to maintain or improve valley elderberry longhorn beetle
habitat throughout its range. Variances may be issued to further
enhance environmental values or meet State and Federal laws and
regulations. The variance must be shown to be necessary, and to be the
only feasible means to: (1) Preserve, protect, and enhance natural
resources; or (2) protect the rights of Native
[[Page 60253]]
Americans, pursuant to treaty and statute. In major portions of some
levee systems where vegetation is already limited or absent (such as
the Sacramento River between Sacramento and Colusa), the variance
process is a possible means by which some increment of beetle habitat
may be restored. Following the Corps' recent proposal to revise the
current process for requesting variances from the ETL (75 FR 6364;
February 9, 2010), the Service has continued to work with the Corps and
others to seek a collaborative solution where a vegetation variance,
tailored to regional conditions, can be issued. This cooperative
partnership regarding the specifics of granting variances remains
valuable for the long-term conservation of the beetle and its habitat
because granting a variance would allow some woody vegetation,
including elderberry shrubs, to remain in place or be planted on
levees.
We are not presently able to determine how many levee segments may
be eligible for a variance. At the time of this proposal, the Service
does not consider the variance process to be a reliable and consistent
means of assuring the protection and persistence of beetle habitat
where it is at risk of loss from flood control activities. We conclude
this because a variance has been granted only once in the past. The
Corps is currently preparing to issue a public draft of a new policy
guidance letter for the variance process; thus, we do not know the
extent to which the Corps may be willing to accommodate variances for
woody vegetation that may include elderberry shrubs in the future
variance process.
In addition to ongoing work with the Corps regarding the variances,
some parts of the State-Federal flood protection system in the Central
Valley currently meet the ETL standards for vegetation, and the State
will enforce the standards in those areas in the future. New levees
being added to a flood protection system (such as setback levees,
backup levees, and ring levees) will also be designed, constructed, and
maintained to ETL standards. This means the type and stature of
vegetation that provides valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat will
continue to be suppressed, although additional habitat would be
available off the levees within new levee areas. The older and original
levees built immediately adjacent to California's major riverine
systems present unique challenges that may require regional variances
or other engineered alternatives if vegetation is to remain, or else
they too may be required to establish and maintain the vegetation-free
zones required by the ETL (as described in the preceding paragraph).
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Association sponsored a symposium
to discuss issues related to levees and vegetation in August 2007. The
symposium led to formation of the California Levees Roundtable, a
collaborative partnership of Federal, State, and local officials. A
product of the Roundtable was the release of the California's Central
Valley Flood System Improvement Framework document (Framework).
Included in the Framework document are interim criteria for vegetation
management on levees, which will be followed while the Central Valley
Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) is being developed. The CVFPP is a
system-wide strategic plan for flood risk reduction in the Central
Valley (scheduled for completion in July 2012) that would occur over
several decades as funding allows.
The Framework has interim criteria that are currently being
implemented for vegetation control on levees, which include
requirements for tree branches (but not trunks) to be trimmed up to 5
ft (1.52 m) above the base and sides of the levee, and up to 12 ft (3.6
m) above the top of the levee. The interim criteria also call for
enough thinning of vegetation to allow visibility and access to the
levee. Thus, the interim criteria and the Framework allow properly
trimmed elderberry shrubs to grow on and around levees, whereas the
Corps' ETL standard vegetation guidelines (assuming no variance)
currently do not.
The Framework interim criteria are in effect until the CVFPP plan
is completed in 2012. It is not clear at this point whether the CVFPP
will incorporate the ETL standards, the Framework interim criteria, or
some other set of standards collaboratively developed by the agencies
involved. Accordingly, the effect of the Framework document is to allow
more vegetation to remain in place than would the ETL guidelines.
Neither the Framework nor the ETL guidelines are currently structured
to accommodate extensive riparian restoration that potentially could
enable the valley elderberry longhorn beetle to be restored to river
reaches from which it currently is absent due to lack of habitat.
Therefore, where such additional vegetation may be deemed appropriate
to benefit the beetle, a variance would be required.
The Framework identified a deadline of November 1, 2010, for Local
Maintaining Agencies (LMAs) to be in compliance with the Framework
interim criteria. The Department of Water Resources conducts levee
inspections twice a year, and reported that 86 of the 106 LMAs (81
percent) were in compliance with the interim criteria by the deadline
(Eckman 2010, pers. comm.). Thirteen LMAs report they will not comply,
and seven report they may comply. The most common reasons for not
complying and for uncertainty about complying include cost, impact
minimization requirements, and inconsistencies between agencies and
issues relating to presence of elderberry shrubs. Thus, elderberry
shrubs may persist in a portion of the 9 percent of LMAs where
compliance is uncertain for a temporary and undetermined time period in
part because some landowners or agencies think permits to cut or remove
elderberries are difficult to obtain and they will be required to
compensate for loss and damage. Additionally, landowners view the
process of obtaining a permit to cut and remove elderberry as time-
consuming. Currently, compliance with the interim criteria would result
in impact minimization or compensation measures for any elderberry
branches or shrubs removed, in accordance with the Service's
conservation and mitigation guidelines (Service 1996, pp. 3, 4; Service
1999a, pp. 3, 4). These beneficial measures would no longer be required
if the beetle is delisted.
Based on data compiled by the Department of Water Resources during
their levee inspections (Eckman 2010, pers. comm.), about 91 mi (146
km) of the total 1,600 mi (2,575 km) of levees (6 percent) do not meet
the Framework interim criteria requiring trimming of branches and
thinning of brush. About 111 elderberry shrubs were estimated to be
present on 2.5 miles (4 km) of those 91 miles (146 km), which is less
than one percent of the total length of the levees (Eckman 2010, pers.
comm.). Most, if not all, of the levee system locations are within the
26 locations described in Tables 1 and 2 of this proposed rule. Near-
term impacts to remaining beetle habitat as a result of maintenance
needed to comply with the Framework and interim criteria are considered
relatively small compared to the suppression of vegetation from
maintenance throughout the entire flood control system.
In summary, maintenance of the existing levee and flood protection
facilities, ongoing projects, and potential future flood control
activities or projects may include direct impacts in the form of
temporary or permanent losses of existing riparian vegetation
(including any associated elderberry shrubs and valley elderberry
longhorn beetles). In some cases, there may also be permanent loss of
riparian vegetation
[[Page 60254]]
from placement of hard rock bank protection that also precludes future
restoration of beetle habitat. However, various interim measures are
currently in place (i.e., the Framework document and its associated
criteria) that limit further losses of riparian vegetation across the
subspecies' range until the CVFPP is completed in 2012.
Flood control elements dominate the river systems that encompass
most of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's range in the Central
Valley proper, measuring in the hundreds of miles and millions of
linear feet of river bank. It is our judgment that the effect of flood
control and associated land-uses resulting from this flood control on
the beetle has been significant at certain localities in terms of
habitat quantity, spatial distribution, and connectivity. Despite the
increased number of occurrences of the subspecies and its larger range
than was previously known, this range encompasses a number of other
maintained floodways for which protections of beetle habitat have not
been established. Levee and flood protection activities (both
maintenance and new construction) remain an ongoing threat at some of
the largest beetle locations or major portions thereof (such as the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers). Maintenance of these floodways can
conflict with the recovery need to establish or protect riparian
vegetation. Further, this maintenance can preclude opportunities to
establish greater connectivity between beetle populations. Finalization
of the CVFPP, the PGL, and implementation of the ETL will influence the
nature and magnitude of impacts to riparian vegetation from flood
control activities and the locations and size of potential riparian
restoration throughout Central Valley streams and floodways.
Road Maintenance and Dust
The Recovery Plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle,
section 7 biological opinions, and research results have identified
roads and trail maintenance, and potentially dust, as threats capable
of lowering the quality of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat
(Service 1984, p. 41; Service 2002, p. 3; Huxel et al. 2003, p. 458).
Machinery used in road maintenance activities can crush nearby
elderberry shrubs, or stress them by compacting soil and raising dust.
When dust is at moderate levels (defined as the amount occurring as a
result of heavy vehicle traffic), it does not directly or indirectly
affect the occupancy of shrubs by the beetle, although research results
show a weak correlation with elderberry shrub stress symptoms (Talley
et al. 2006b, p. 653). In contrast to this weak correlation, Talley et
al. (2006b, p. 647) also found that the distribution of elderberry
shrubs along the American River Parkway was not negatively affected by
the proximity to dirt surfaces, and that the presence of the beetle was
neither positively nor negatively affected by the low amount of dust
produced by normal parkway use. Currently available data indicate that
road and trail maintenance activities are evident at only five
locations in the north and south Central Valleys (including the Feather
River, Lower American River, Upper American River vicinity, Kern River,
and Caliente Creek).
There is no evidence to suggest that the proximity of conservation
sites adjacent to dirt or paved trails and low-traffic roadways results
in detrimental effects to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or its
habitat, as long as dust levels do not exceed the low levels found in
the study (Talley et al. 2006b, p. 655). Although a rangewide study on
the effects of dust has not been conducted, the amount of dust-causing
traffic adjacent to beetle habitat elsewhere in the range of the beetle
is expected to be low and occur only intermittently.
Climate Change
Consideration of climate change is a component of our analyses
under the Act. In general terms, ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of various weather conditions such as temperature or
precipitation, over a long period of time (e.g. decades, centuries, or
thousands of years). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a
change in the state of the climate (whether due to natural variability,
human activity, or both) that can be identified by changes in the mean
or variability of its properties and that persists for an extended
period--typically decades or longer (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78).
Changes in climate are occurring. The global mean surface air
temperature is the most widely used measure of climate change, and
based on extensive analyses, the IPCC concluded that warming of the
global climate system over the past several decades is ``unequivocal''
(IPCC 2007a, p. 2). Other examples of climate change include
substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and
decreases in other regions (for these and other examples, see IPCC
2007a, p. 30; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85). Various
environmental changes are occurring in association with changes in
climate (for global and regional examples, see IPCC 2007a, pp. 2-4, 30-
33; for U.S. examples, see Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States by Karl et al. 2009, pp. 27, 79-88).
Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since
the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in
climate, and is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use (IPCC
2007a, p. 5 and Figure SPM.3; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35).
Therefore, to project future changes in temperature and other climate
conditions, scientists use a variety of climate models (which include
consideration of natural processes and variability) in conjunction with
various scenarios of potential levels and timing of greenhouse gas
emissions (such as Meehl et al. 2007 entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp.
11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
The projected magnitude of average global warming for this century
is very similar under all combinations of models and emissions
scenarios until about 2030. Thereafter, the projections show greater
divergence across scenarios. Despite these differences in projected
magnitude, however, the overall trajectory is one of increased warming
throughout this century under all scenarios, including those which
assume a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Meehl et al. 2007, pp.
760-764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). Some of the IPCC's other key global climate projections,
which they expressed using a framework for treatment of uncertainties
(such as ``very likely'' is greater than 90 percent probability; see
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23) include the following: (1) It is
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most
land areas; (3) it is very likely that the frequency of heavy
precipitation events, or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy
falls, will increase over most areas; and (4) it is likely the area
affected by droughts will increase, that intense tropical cyclone
activity will increase, and that there will be increased incidence of
extreme high sea level (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect
effects on species, and these may be positive or
[[Page 60255]]
negative depending on the species and other relevant considerations,
including interacting effects with habitat fragmentation or other non-
climate variables (such as Franco et al. 2006; Forister et al. 2010;
Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011). Scientists are projecting
possible impacts and responses of ecological systems, habitat
conditions, groups of species, and individual species related to
changes in climate (such as Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2009;
Euskirchen et al. 2009; McKechnie and Wolf 2009; Sinervo et al. 2010;
Beaumont et al. 2011). These and many other studies generally entail
consideration of information regarding the following three main
components of vulnerability to climate change: exposure to changes in
climate, sensitivity to such changes, and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007,
p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). Because aspects of these
components can vary by species and situation, as can interactions among
climate and non-climate conditions, there is no single way to conduct
our analyses. We use the best scientific and commercial data available
to identify potential impacts and responses by species that may arise
in association with different components of climate change, including
interactions with non-climate conditions as appropriate.
Projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (such as
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Thus, although global climate projections are
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific
information available, to the extent possible we use ``downscaled''
climate projections, which provide higher-resolution information that
is more relevant to the spatial scales used to assess impacts to a
given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61 for a discussion of
downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, downscaled projections of climate in California are
available.
Global climate change may have significant effects on plant species
distributions in California over the next 100 years (Loarie et al.
2008, pp. 1, 3-5), and thus has the potential to negatively impact the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Likely direct impacts of climate
change in the region over that timeframe include an increase in annual
mean temperatures ranging from 3.1 to 4.3 degrees Centigrade (C) (5.5
to 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit (F)) under assumptions geared to produce
medium-level warming scenarios (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 38). However, one
of the elderberry species on which the beetle depends (Sambucus
mexicana) is well adapted to warm temperatures, and extends its range
into southern California and northern Mexico (Crane 1989, p. 2;
Dempster 1993, p. 3). Higher temperatures are also not expected to
produce large changes in total precipitation in California (Cayan et
al. 2006, p. 39), although more precipitation is expected to fall in
the nearby Sierra Nevada mountains as rain rather than snow, thereby
lessening summer water availability in snowpack-dominated watersheds
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448, 3454; van Mantgem et al. 2009,
p. 523). Effects of climate change on the beetle, other than on habitat
and plant species distribution, are mentioned below (Factor E).
Average temperatures have been rising in the Central Valley of
California, and this trend will likely continue because of climate
change. Climate change may also affect precipitation and the severity,
duration, or periodicity of drought. However, there is a great deal of
uncertainty as to the rate at which the average temperature may
increase, and the effect of climate change on both precipitation and
drought. In addition to the uncertainty associated with how the overall
climate of the Central Valley may change, the impact of climate change
on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle will depend on a complex array
of other factors, including how the subspecies and its habitat respond
to climate change. We know that one of the elderberry species on which
the beetle depends is well adapted to warm temperatures, and extends
its range into southern California and northern Mexico. We are not
aware of information that would allow us to make a meaningful
prediction that potential changes in temperature and precipitation
patterns would significantly affect elderberry growth, or whether such
changes may cause shifts in the timing of elderberry flowering relative
to beetle emergence, or affect the relationship of these two species in
any other way.
Conservation--Habitat Restoration and Protection
Estimates of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Conserved Areas
Former Estimate
The amount of riparian vegetation and associated beetle habitat
considered conserved has been revised since our 5-year review (Service
2006a). According to the estimate used in our 5-year review, since the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle was listed in 1980, approximately
45,000 ac (18,211 ha) of existing riparian vegetation had been acquired
or protected (Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 46-47), which is approximately
34 percent of the 132,586 ac (53,656 ha) of riparian vegetation
estimated to remain in the Central Valley in 2003 (Geographic
Information Center 2003). This estimate did not include the American
River Parkway, much of which was considered protected at the time of
listing, nor does it include protected areas established in accordance
with the Service's guidelines under section 7 consultations (Service
1996, pp. 3, 4; Service 1999a, pp. 3, 4).
The estimate of 45,000 ac (18,211 ha) of acquired or protected
habitat includes 6,600 ac (2,671 ha) of land in the San Joaquin River
NWR, and assumes these lands could support the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle under favorable management (Talley et al. 2006a, p.
47). However, most of the Refuge acreage is low in elevation and
subject to flooding for longer periods than elderberry shrubs can
survive (Griggs 2007, pers. comm.). As discussed below, numerous
recently planted elderberry shrubs within this portion of the San
Joaquin River NWR died due to flooding in 2006. Only about 120 ac (49
ha) of the 6,600 ac (2,671 ha) of the San Joaquin River NWR mentioned
by Talley et al. (2006a, p. 47) are likely capable of supporting the
beetle.
Some existing areas that are protected and currently provide a
benefit to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle were not yet
established at the time that Talley et al. (2006a, Table 2.3.1.1, p.
47) conducted an analysis of acquired or protected beetle habitat. For
example, the Kern River Preserve (1,000 ac (405 ha)) was not yet
established. Additionally, other currently protected areas acquired
prior to listing were outside the known range of the beetle at the time
of listing, such as the Bobelaine, Feather River Wildlife Area (2,900
ac (1,174 ha)). Other significant areas mentioned in Table 2.3.1.1 of
Talley et al. (2006a, p. 47) could have some benefit to the beetle in a
portion of the sites due to the mosaic of habitat types that are known
to occur between wetland and upland areas (such as at the Consumnes
River Preserve, 5,500 ac (2,226 ha)). Finally, the table did not
specify areas where the beetle would benefit from conservation
easements of 23+ mi (37+ km) of river frontage. In its proper context,
Table 2.3.1.1 in Talley et al. (2006a, p. 47) was never intended as an
estimate of protected beetle habitat, but rather, a list of some of the
major habitat acquisition and protection efforts in the Central Valley
that
[[Page 60256]]
contained some component of riparian vegetation with potential to
benefit the beetle (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 46). Based on this
interpretation, we do not use--or discuss--the 45,000-ac (18,211-ha)
figure further in this proposed rule.
Current Estimate
For this proposed rule, we constructed a GIS database from several
sources to provide a range of estimates of the current amount and
distribution of protected riparian vegetation (which may or may not
contain elderberry shrubs) in the range of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, and the amount of beetle habitat restored or created.
For reference and as stated previously in the ``Lost Historical Range''
section, 132,586 ac (53,656 ha) of riparian vegetation remained across
the Central Valley in 2003 (Geographic Information Center 2003).
Current range estimates are as follows:
(1) Protected Riparian Vegetation--Areas of land within the range
of the beetle that is either subject to a conservation easement, is
riparian land managed and held in fee by CDFG, or public land known to
be managed for conservation (such as Cosumnes River Preserve). The
amount of such protected riparian vegetation is 21,536 ac (8,715 ha).
We used a GIS-layer of riparian vegetation from the Department of Water
Resources to obtain this estimate.
(2) Restored Riparian Vegetation--Areas of predominantly Federal
and State lands of any riparian type, including both beetle habitat and
general riparian combined (approximately 13,000 ac (5,261 ha)).
(3) Restored Beetle Habitat--Areas with elderberry plantings and
partially overlapping restoration lands where these have been planted,
including various mitigation banks and excluding approximately 1,600 ac
(648 ha) not yet planted. This estimate is approximately 12,400 ac
(5,018 ha).
Each of these estimates should be interpreted with caution. The
riparian vegetation GIS layer may include areas too wet for elderberry
to grow, and may exclude small fragments, or some adjacent lands, where
elderberry or other riparian could potentially grow. For the elderberry
plantings total (with the exception of transplantings and plantings
near occurrences), some elderberry has been planted too recently to
expect the plants to be occupied by the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle because occupancy increases as a function of time, particularly
after 7 years (River Partners 2004a, p. 4). Some restoration has not
been successful as noted above, and some is within mitigation banks
intended to offset losses of beetle habitat elsewhere. Finally, there
is significant, albeit incomplete, overlap among these riparian
vegetation estimates.
Discussion of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Conserved Areas
Eight agencies and private organizations have completed 26 projects
to enhance or restore 4,950 ac (2,003 ha) by planting elderberry
(Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 46-49). Most of these elderberry-specific
restoration efforts are located within already protected riparian
vegetation discussed above.
The largest effort to protect and restore beetle habitat (through
elderberry plantings) is that at the Sacramento River NWR. Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle habitat on this refuge currently totals more
than 2,400 ac (974 ha). The Sacramento River NWR was established in
1989, with a focus on conserving the beetle as well as other native
riparian species (Service 2006a, p. 9). Over 100,000 elderberry
seedlings or transplanted shrubs have been planted at the refuge
(Talley et al. 2006a, p. 51). If any significant number of elderberry
shrubs were lost at this Refuge, they would be replanted as described
in the Sacramento River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP),
which identifies conservation of the beetle as one of its management
goals (Service 2005, pp. 1-37). These areas are considered fully
protected.
Unfortunately, in 2006, elderberry shrubs that had been planted on
approximately 765 ac (310 ha) in the San Joaquin River NWR and 35 ac
(14 ha) in the Mohler Tract of the Stanislaus River died due to
flooding (Griggs 2007, pers. comm.; River Partners 2007, p. 47). The
San Joaquin River NWR responded by planting elderberry on about 120 ac
(49 ha) of higher elevation land. Additionally, drought at the San Luis
and Merced National Wildlife Refuges killed all but about 100
elderberry shrubs out of the 250 ac (101 ha) planted at those sites
(Woolington 2007, pers. comm.). The remaining total areas of restored
valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat (roughly 4,000 ac (1,619 ha),
or the total restored acreage (4,950 ac) (2,003 ha)), less the 765 ac
(310 ha) on San Joaquin NWR and 250 ac (101 ha) at San Luis/Merced NWR,
are likely to remain viable for the beetle into the foreseeable future,
as evidenced by the fact that the elderberry shrubs survived the
flooding and droughts discussed above.
Seven agencies and private organizations have completed, or are
completing, 19 projects restoring or enhancing riparian vegetation
totaling approximately 1,592 ac (644 ha), but no elderberry are being
planted at these sites (Talley et al. 2006a, pp. 48-51). Over time,
elderberry shrubs should naturally colonize riparian sites, as
elderberry seeds are dispersed by many bird species that nest, forage,
or transit riparian areas. A number of these restoration and
enhancement projects (River Partners 2003, p. 4; 2004b, p. 4) may
provide incidental benefits to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle by
encouraging natural elderberry colonization of restored areas (Howe and
Smallwood 1982, p. 216; NRCS 2006, p. 4).
Currently, of the 26 known locations of valley elderberry longhorn
beetles, 4 include a significant component of well-protected lands with
known beetle habitat mainly as State or Federal wildlife areas (Bear
River, Cosumnes River, Feather River, Sacramento River), and portions
of 6 others contain some well-protected lands (Stony Creek, Big Chico
Creek, Butte Creek, Tuolumne River, Kaweah River, and San Joaquin
River). The extent of protection and success as beetle habitat along
the San Joaquin River is somewhat less than the others. Seven locations
(Lower American River, Big Chico Creek, Putah Creek, Lower Stanislaus
River, Kings River, Upper Stanislaus Hills, and portion of the Kaweah
River upstream of Lake Isabella) are managed for natural and open space
values, or are partially on city parks and Forest Service lands, where
the land and management status protects against urban development, but
with no specific protections for the beetle or elderberry shrubs in
particular. The remaining locations or portions of the remaining
locations are on lands without protections or are not known to have
protections, some of which are private lands or designated floodways
that may experience activities that affect elderberries (primarily
through vegetation suppression from bank protection and vegetation
removal on levees and within floodway channels). This includes (but is
not limited to) some sections of the Sacramento River from Colusa to
the American River confluence, portions of Big Chico and Butte Creeks,
parts of the Feather, American, and Bear Rivers, Thomes Creek, Yuba
River, former portions of Ulatis Creek (now a flood channel), Cache
Creek, Upper Stanislaus Hills, the Calaveras River-Stockton Diverting
Canal, Mokelumne-Bear Rivers, Merced River, Kings River, Tule River-
Deer Creek, Kern River, and Caliente Creek.
Some locations (or portions thereof) on private lands throughout
the Central Valley, despite lack of formal protections, are deemed less
likely to be impacted due to the remote or rural
[[Page 60257]]
nature of the locations, or sometimes topography, that currently limits
the threats of agriculture and urban development. The potential of
future threat at these private ownership locations is unknown. These
less threatened private areas include: Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks,
Cache and Putah Creeks, portions of the Mokelumne and Calaveras Rivers,
the Kaweah River upstream of Lake Isabella, Upper Stanislaus Hills,
portions of the upper American River vicinity (i.e., between the north
and south forks, but not northwest), and Caliente Creek. Of these, the
Mokelumne location has a safe harbor agreement with limited
participation at this time. It should be noted that the threat of
habitat loss from development in these areas, while reduced, is not
necessarily eliminated, and it is reasonable to anticipate some future
loss. Some habitat losses have occurred in some of these remote sites,
such as Upper Stanislaus Hills, and Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks, due to
recent light residential or ranchette development.
In the south Central Valley, the occupied locations immediately
south of Sacramento to Stanislaus County have a good potential to
support populations of valley elderberry longhorn beetles; however,
there are limited protections for this existing habitat. For example,
the Cosumnes River Preserve covers only a portion (perhaps 20 percent
of its length) of the Cosumnes River, but beetle records and habitat
are largely outside of the Preserve. Much of the riparian area along
the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Stanislaus Rivers, which appears on aerial
photos as intact riparian vegetation, is privately owned and to our
knowledge does not have protection. Additionally, most locations in the
southern portion of the subspecies' range (as compared to the north
Central Valley) harbor fewer occurrences in general, and display lower
quality riparian vegetation (both major rivers and tributaries,
particularly on the valley floor). Therefore, persistence and
conservation of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle in the central
and especially the northern portion of its range may provide more
consistent support of the subspecies as a whole, both currently and in
the foreseeable future. The likelihood of persistence of the subspecies
is considered fair, average, or good at all south Central Valley
locations with the exception of three locations that are uncertain due
to lower quality beetle habitat and absence of protections as compared
to the north Central Valley. Additionally, in some south Central Valley
areas where there is protected beetle habitat (Kings and San Joaquin
Rivers), the subspecies has not been observed despite recent surveys.
Examples of protected lands in the southern Central Valley include
about 5,500 ac (2,226 ha) of floodplain habitat suitable for the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle in the Cosumnes River Preserve (Talley et
al. 2006a, p. 47) and the San Joaquin River Parkway, which is being
built in Fresno and Madera Counties as a result of Federal, State, and
local efforts, including efforts at the San Joaquin NWR. As of May
2008, the San Joaquin River Parkway project has protected approximately
2,218 ac (898 ha) of riparian lands from future development (San
Joaquin River Conservancy 2008, p. 1). Protected parkway land currently
includes the entirety of one known beetle occurrence and overlaps the
southern edge of a second (Greeninfo Trust 2007, p. 1; CNDDB 2010a, pp.
118, 119).
Conservation Through Section 7 Consultations and Section 10 Habitat
Conservation Plans
The Service has developed conservation guidelines to promote
restoration and protection of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat
(USFWS 1996, 1999a). Subsequent to the development of these guidelines,
proponents of projects resulting in authorized habitat loss often
conduct habitat restoration for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
as an impact minimization measure (Service 1996 pp. 3, 4; Service
1999a, pp. 3, 4). Since the 1996 and revised 1999 guidelines were
implemented, the number of restoration and protection actions for
beetle habitat has dramatically increased. As described above under the
``Agricultural and Urban Development'' section, we reviewed Federal
projects for which we conducted section 7 consultations for the beetle
between 1983 and 2006. We determined that the total amount of
incidental take authorized amounted to roughly 10,000 to 20,000 ac
(4,047 to 8,094 ha) of riparian vegetation, with actual acres lost an
unknown amount less due to projects that were not implemented, and
thus, for which habitat loss did not occur (Talley et al. 2006a, p.
34); however, this acreage range does not account for the conservation
(such as restoration or protection of beetle habitat) that occurred as
a result of these projects. Our files indicate that as a result of the
conservation guidelines, project proponents established agreements to
restore and protect (through conservation easements in perpetuity)
approximately 400 to 1,900 ac (162 to 769 ha) of beetle habitat
(estimated based on extrapolations of relatively limited data) (Service
2006a, p. 7) in association with section 7 consultation activities.
This habitat restoration and protection is in addition to conservation
efforts unassociated with incidental take (see following paragraphs in
this section).
The habitat restoration and protection agreements established under
the guidelines require planting and maintenance of roughly 3.5 new
elderberry shoots on protected land for every elderberry stem 1 in.
(2.5 cm) in diameter or greater that is removed (Talley et al. 2006a,
p. 29). They also include requirements that would result in
approximately 76 percent of elderberry shrubs being transplanted rather
than destroyed by a project. Elderberry shrub transplants have resulted
in successful colonizations at 88 percent of the sites to which shrubs
potentially containing beetle larvae were transplanted (Holyoak et al.
2010, p. 49).
The degree of success of the conservation guidelines (as discussed
above) has been difficult to measure because many of the required
monitoring reports were unavailable to the Service and Talley et al.
(2006a, p. 29). However, based on best estimates from available
reports, the conservation measures agreed to by project proponents may
have offset the loss of elderberry shrubs caused by their projects, and
even resulted in a net gain of shrubs (Holyoak et al. 2010, p. 51).
Valley elderberry longhorn beetles were present at approximately 47
percent of pre-impact sites (based on recent exit holes), and have
colonized approximately 43 percent of the restored and protected sites
established as a result of consultations under section 7 of the Act
(Holyoak et al. 2010, pp. 49, 50). Establishment of additional sites
specifically designed to compensate for take of the beetle would cease
if the beetle is delisted, but existing protected sites established
under these agreements would continue to remain in place following
delisting of the beetle, and compensation for riparian vegetation
losses could likely continue in some circumstances.
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat has also been protected
or restored through the provisions of section 10 of the Act. Habitat
conservation plans prepared for the beetle to offset the effects of a
project, through some combination of habitat restoration and protection
transplanting of occupied elderberry shrubs to a protected location,
are accompanied by
[[Page 60258]]
a management plan that benefits the beetle. Twenty incidental take
permits have been issued, totaling roughly 5,353 ac (2,166 ha) of
incidental take authorized; the majority of these minimally impacted
the beetle or its habitat.
Five conservation banks containing protected beetle habitat have
been authorized to sell credits for the beetle as needed for project
impacts associated with either section 7 or 10 of the Act. These banks
protect approximately 242 ac (98 ha) of existing, restored, or created
habitat for the beetle in Placer, Shasta, San Joaquin, Sacramento, and
Yolo Counties (Talley 2006a, p. 55). A sixth bank in Yolo County
supports some elderberry shrubs, but is not authorized to sell credits
for the beetle.
Since 1996, our conservation and mitigation guidelines under
sections 7 and 10 of the Act have required project proponents to
establish preserves and conservation easements for the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle to minimize the impacts of projects that may
incidentally take beetles (Service 1996, p. 6; Service 1999a, p. 6).
These protected areas of habitat total approximately 642 to 1,900 ac
(260 to 769 ha), which are in addition to areas that have been restored
for the beetle, all of which is described in further detail under the
``Current Estimate'' section above.
Summary of Factor A
Since the mid-1800s, riparian vegetation has been impacted
throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys as a result of
agricultural and urban development, and associated flood control
activities. At the time of listing, habitat loss was identified as one
of the most significant threats to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle (45 FR 52805, August 8, 1980; Eng 1984, pp. 916-917). These
impacts are expected to continue to affect the beetle as a result of
some additional riparian vegetation (and specifically beetle habitat)
loss across the subspecies' range. Cumulatively, this riparian
vegetation loss and associated beetle habitat loss may limit the
overall amount of beetle habitat, and in some cases cause the loss of
connectivity between beetle locations. However, when examining the
potential rangewide impacts across the subspecies' known current range
that is now known to be greater in size than at the time of listing, we
believe that those impacts are of a lower magnitude to the subspecies
as a whole due to there being significantly more locations known today
(26 locations), including protected areas, as compared to the level of
impacts affecting the 3 locations known at the time of listing.
Agricultural and urban development (including activities that
impact vegetation that grows along existing irrigation channels,
levees, etc.) throughout much of the range of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle is likely to continue to have some effect on the
subspecies and its habitat.
The flood protection system throughout the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle's range is fairly extensive, impacting most of the
rivers or creeks where beetle occurrences are known. Many dams or other
flood protection facilities (such as levees) predate listing of the
beetle, but require ongoing maintenance or improvements currently and
into the future, such as improvement projects completed through the
Corps. Construction and maintenance of these flood protection and
associated reservoir flood control facilities have resulted in direct
losses of riparian vegetation within project impact areas, and indirect
impacts in surrounding riparian vegetation areas, due to agricultural
and urban development resulting from flood protection.
Although ongoing and future maintenance of levees, channels, and
other facilities will likely result in future losses of valley
elderberry longhorn beetle habitat at some locations, these impacts are
currently limited by interim protection measures. The Corps has
established a procedure for seeking a variance from the ETL (which can
result in vegetation-free zones within riparian areas when
implemented). Variances may be issued to provide opportunities for
beetle habitat to remain. Also, the California's Central Valley Flood
System Improvement Framework document is under development. Until this
is finalized in 2012, interim criteria are being implemented that
provide protection measures for beetle habitat. As a result of the
Framework document and interim criteria, impacts to remaining beetle
habitat along the majority of levees throughout the subspecies' range
are likely to be insignificant in the near term. However, long-term
effects are unknown as implementation of the ETL and variance process
have not yet been finalized.
The Recovery Plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle,
section 7 biological opinions, and research results have identified
road or trail maintenance, and potentially dust, as threats capable of
lowering the quality of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat
(Service 1984, p. 41; Service 2002, p. 3; Huxel et al. 2003, p. 458).
However, recent studies have determined that as long as dust levels
remain low, neither road maintenance, trail maintenance, nor dust
appear to harm beetle populations or elderberry shrubs.
Although an unknown amount of habitat for the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle has been lost since the time of listing, we now know
that the range of the beetle is larger than was previously known. About
21,536 ac (8,715 ha) of lands containing riparian vegetation have been
preserved, enhanced, or restored by many agencies and organizations
across the subspecies' current range. This is a fraction of the roughly
132,586 ac (53,656 ha) of riparian vegetation (not necessarily all
containing elderberry shrubs) estimated to remain in the Central Valley
in 2003 (our most recent estimate) (Geographic Information Center 2003,
p. 14). These estimates include approximately 18,000 ac (7,284 ha) of
Central Valley Joint Venture conservation easements, approximately
13,000 ac (5,261 ha) of restoration lands predominantly on Federal and
State areas, and approximately 12,400 ac (5,018 ha) of lands with
elderberry plantings (the latter of which partially overlaps
restoration lands, such as mitigation banks, and excludes approximately
1,600 ac (648 ha) that has not yet been planted). We note that each of
these estimates should be interpreted with caution; only a portion of
these conservation easements or restoration lands actually support
riparian vegetation that could contain elderberry, or are dedicated
specifically to elderberry plantings.
Habitat and valley elderberry longhorn beetle protection measures
are also associated with section 7 consultations and mitigation
occurring as a result of section 10 habitat conservation plans. Since
the 1996 and revised 1999 guidelines were implemented, the number of
restoration and protection actions that have occurred to benefit the
beetle have dramatically increased. To date, project proponents have
restored and protected (through conservation easements in perpetuity)
approximately 642 to 1,900 ac (260 to 769 ha) of beetle habitat.
Finally, another large protected riparian area that provides
habitat for the beetle is the 4,600-ac (1,862-ha) American River
Parkway (Parkway) in Sacramento County, which includes important
habitat for the beetle, part of which was designated critical habitat
(45 FR 52803; August 8, 1980) (see Recovery Planning and
Implementation, ``Primary Interim Objective 1'' above).
[[Page 60259]]
There is uncertainty as to the effect of climate change on
precipitation and the severity, duration, or periodicity of drought in
the Central Valley. The impact of climate change on the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle will depend on many factors, including how
the subspecies and its habitat respond to such change. We are not aware
of information that would allow us to make a meaningful prediction that
potential changes in temperature and precipitation patterns would
significantly affect elderberry growth.
Overall, we consider the current and future impacts of habitat loss
on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle to be different today than at
the time of listing. There are a greater number of locations within the
range of the subspecies (26 locations) known now compared to the time
of listing (3 locations), and there have been conservation actions and
protections at portions of those additional locations. Of the 26 known
locations, all or portions of 10 are on State or Federal wildlife areas
or other areas under conservation easement, and all or portions of 6
are partially on city parks or Forest Service lands, where the
particular threat of habitat loss is reduced, but other threats from
human use remain. All or portions of 7 other locations throughout the
Central Valley include private lands where (despite lack of formal
protections) threats are presently reduced due to their remote or rural
nature, or due to topography that limits the more pervasive threats of
agricultural and urban development. The majority of locations contain
some lands without protections, some of which are private or designated
as floodways that could experience activities that affect beetle
habitat. These unprotected locations encompass most of the range of the
subspecies, including riparian zones in major drainages. Therefore, we
conclude that agricultural and urban development, levees, and flood
control protection remain threats to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle now, and likely into the future, although these threats are not
considered significant when taken within the context of the increased
number of occurrences known today as compared to the time of listing.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Collecting all species of longhorn beetles is popular among amateur
entomologists. However, we are not aware of any evidence that
commercial use or private trade of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle has been, or is, a threat. We did not identify collecting or
overutilization for any purpose as a threat to the beetle in the final
listing rule or the Recovery Plan. Therefore, based on our review of
the available scientific and commercial information, overutilization
for any purpose is not currently considered a threat, and is not
anticipated to emerge as a threat in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
At the time of listing in 1980, we did not consider disease or
predation as significant threats to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle. Given the available scientific and commercial information on
the beetle, disease is not considered a threat. Since listing, however,
several insect predators have been identified as potential threats to
the beetle.
Predation
The invasive, nonnative Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) has been
identified as a potential threat to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle (Huxel 2000, pp. 83-84). This ant is both an aggressive
competitor with, and predator on, several species of native fauna, and
is spreading throughout California riparian areas and displacing
assemblages of native arthropods (Ward 1987, pp. 10-15; Holway 1995,
pp. 1634-1637; Human and Gordon 1997, pp. 1243-1247; Holway 1998, pp.
254-257). The best available data indicate that Argentine ants are
evident at approximately five locations in the north Central Valley
(i.e., Sacramento River-Redding to Red Bluff, Sacramento River Red
Bluff to Chico, Feather River, Lower American River, and Putah Creek)
and 3 locations in the south Central Valley (i.e., Lower Stanislaus
River, Merced River, and Tule River-Deer Creek).
The Argentine ant requires moisture, and may thrive in riparian or
irrigated areas (Holway and Suarez 2006, p. 321). A negative
association between the presence of the ant and valley elderberry
longhorn beetle exit holes was observed along Putah Creek in Yolo and
Solano Counties in 1997, causing the author to conclude that the spread
of Argentine ants along permanent streams would likely have a
significant impact on the long-term persistence of the beetle (Huxel
2000, pp. 83-84). Although Huxel's (2000) survey did not distinguish
whether the observed negative association is due to direct effects of
the ant on the beetle, or simply a result of different habitat
preferences between the two species, a follow-up study (Klasson et al.
2005, pp. 7, 8) found that Argentine ants tend to co-occur with the
beetle on elderberry shrubs, and noted this was likely because both are
attracted to the habitat provided by the shrub. The authors concluded
that there were likely to be threshold densities of Argentine ants
below which beetle populations could remain relatively unaffected, but
they did not suggest what those densities might be. However, they did
note that impact minimization and mitigation sites established for the
beetle tended to have the highest densities of Argentine ants. It is
possible that the ants may be imported on seedlings from nurseries,
with irrigation of these impact minimization or mitigation areas
potentially providing a dependable moisture source for the ant
colonies.
A recently submitted preliminary report for a survey conducted 12
years after the survey reported by Huxel (2000) found that the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle does continue to occupy at least three of
six locations along Putah Creek (Holyoak and Graves 2010, p. 23). The
same preliminary report suggests that the average number of recent
beetle exit holes per elderberry shrub is lower for shrubs with
Argentine ants (Holyoak and Graves 2010, p. 17). The authors did not
conclude that this apparent difference was statistically significant,
however, and noted that because the beetle is found at such low
densities, sampling must be extensive to statistically confirm
population declines as serious as 50 percent or higher (Holyoak and
Graves 2010, p. 20). The study found Argentine ants to be present on 13
percent of shrubs overall, and present in 7 of 10 watersheds sampled
from across the range of the beetle (Putah Creek, and American,
Feather, Sacramento, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tule Rivers; Holyoak and
Graves 2010, p. 16). This aggressive ant may potentially interfere with
adult mating or feeding behavior, or prey on larvae (Way et al. 1992,
pp. 427-431), but predation on eggs would be the most likely impact
(Huxel et al. 2003, p. 459). In Portugal, Argentine ants have become
significant predators on the eggs of another cerambycid beetle, the
eucalyptus borer (Phoracantha semipunctata), which has a similar life
history to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Huxel et al. 2003, p.
459).
Invasive ants, including the argentine ants specifically, can cause
severe ecological impacts, including documented threats to many other
listed invertebrate species in the United States (Wagner and van
Driesche 2010, p. 555). It is possible that the lack of demonstrated
predation impact on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle could be due
to small sample size, and similar
[[Page 60260]]
effects of nonnative ants on other species indicate that some effect on
the beetle cannot be ruled out. However, based on our review of the
best available information, particularly the co-occurrence of Argentine
ants (and other ant species) and the beetle, we do not have sufficient
information to demonstrate that such predation, if it occurs at all,
constitutes a significant threat to the beetle.
The European earwig (Forficula auricularia) is a scavenger and
omnivore that is often found on elderberry shrubs, and may feed
opportunistically on exposed valley elderberry longhorn beetle larvae
(Klasson et al. 2005, p. 8). Earwigs require moisture, and Klasson et
al. (2005, p. 8) considered their densities to be higher in impact
minimization or mitigation sites, due to irrigation. However, this
hypothesis was not tested statistically. Klasson et al. (2005, p. 8)
suggested that elevated earwig densities at impact minimization or
mitigation sites could contribute directly to increased predation on
the beetle in those areas, and could also attract lizards that could
further increase predation pressure; they noted that such ideas need to
be tested further. Thus, we have no information to suggest that earwig
predation or presence constitutes a specific threat to the beetle.
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is also likely prey of
insectivorous birds. One study noted holes in elderberry stems created
by foraging birds at nearly every site where beetle exit holes were
found, suggesting that birds had been excavating holes to forage for
beetle larvae in the pith (Lang et al. 1989, p. 246). The study also
noted that beetle populations appeared to be limited at any one site by
factors other than habitat availability, suggesting that predation by
birds could be one such additional limiting factor (Lang et al. 1989,
p. 246). However, we have no further information to indicate what level
of impact, if any, bird predation imposes on beetle population levels.
Summary of Factor C
We have no information to indicate that the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle is threatened by disease. The best available
information indicates birds, lizards, European earwigs, and Argentine
ants are potential predators of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Although predation likely causes some mortality of individual eggs,
larvae, or adult beetles, we have no data that support the premise that
predation is adversely affecting the subspecies as a whole. Beetles
have coexisted with Argentine ants at Putah Creek and the American
River Parkway for over 10 years (Huxel 2000, p. 82; Holyoak and Graves
2010, pp. 16, 17, 30), although possibly not without some decrease in
average adult beetle population size, as measured by recent exit holes
(Holyoak and Graves 2010, p. 17). The question of the extent to which
predation by Argentine ants could be lowering adult beetle populations
is potentially important because Argentine ants have been found in 7 of
the 26 beetle locations, but existing evidence suggests that ants need
to be present above some as yet unknown density threshold. Based on
review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
do not consider disease or predation to be of such significance that it
could threaten the continued existence of the beetle currently or in
the future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
State and Federal laws provide some degree of protection for
riparian vegetation and valley elderberry longhorn beetles, as
discussed below. We did not research the extent to which county or city
ordinances or regulations provide direct protection for the beetle,
although the subspecies may benefit from some city and county open
space designations that harbor beetle habitat. The beetle may also
benefit from local impact minimization or mitigation plans for special
status species that have been developed as part of city or county
general plans. Conversely, other types of local zoning or changes in
open space designations in the future could affect the beetle. For the
purposes of this discussion, we assume that there are no local laws
that provide protection for the subspecies.
State Laws
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) does not provide
protection to insects (sections 2062, 2067, and 2068, California Fish
and Game Code). The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and bank swallow
(Riparia riparia) are migratory birds listed as threatened under CESA
that are known to seasonally inhabit riparian areas within the beetle's
range. The CESA listing of these two bird species likely affords
limited incidental protection to the beetle in instances where project
proponents are encouraged to minimize habitat alteration associated
with development activities. However, in general, neither the
Swainson's hawk nor the bank swallow inhabit the Central Valley year
round. Because the CESA prohibition against take does not generally
include effects to a species resulting from loss of its habitat (there
is no prohibition against ``harm'' under CESA as there is under the
Act), project proponents may destroy the hawk's and swallow's habitat
once the birds have migrated south for the winter. In this sense,
protections afforded the valley elderberry longhorn beetle by the CESA
listing of these two bird species are limited and temporary.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires review of
any project that is undertaken, funded, or permitted by the State or a
local governmental agency. If significant effects are identified, the
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in
the project or deciding that overriding considerations make mitigation
infeasible (CEQA Sec. 21002). In the latter case, projects may be
approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as
destruction of wildlife species or their habitat. Species protection,
including the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, through CEQA is
therefore dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency.
Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code authorizes CDFG
to regulate streambed alteration. CDFG must be notified of, and
approve, any work that substantially diverts, alters, or obstructs the
natural flow or substantially changes the bed, channel, or banks of any
river, stream, or lake. If an existing fish or wildlife resource could
be substantially adversely affected by a project, CDFG must provide the
project applicant with a draft agreement within 60 days to protect the
species (section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code). However,
if CDFG does not submit such a draft agreement within the required
time, the applicant may proceed with the work. Mitigation under a
streambed alteration agreement is entirely voluntary by a project
applicant; thus, such agreements are typically only provided to
applicants when the mitigation activities they identify are compatible
with other mitigation activities required by another type of permit.
Section 815 of the California Civil Code establishes conservation
easements as enforceable and perpetual interests in real property for
purposes of retaining land in its natural state (Cal Civ Code, sections
815-815.3). Conservation easements can only be held by nonprofit
environmental organizations, State or local governmental entities, or
Native American tribes (Cal Civ Code, section 815.3). Conservation
easements have been used to protect land for the beetle in mitigation
banks and under the terms of permits granted under sections 7 and 10 of
the Act. Although sections 7 and
[[Page 60261]]
10 would no longer protect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle if the
subspecies were to be delisted, those conservation easements currently
in existence would continue in perpetuity.
Federal Protections
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) may provide some protection for the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle to the degree its procedural requirements inform Federal agency
decision-making. For activities undertaken, authorized, or funded by
Federal agencies (activities with a Federal nexus), NEPA requires the
lead agency to analyze the project for potential impacts to the human
environment prior to implementation. If that analysis reveals
significant environmental effects, the Federal agency includes a
discussion of mitigation measures that could help offset those effects
(40 CFR 1502.16). However, the agency need not actually implement the
mitigation measures discussed. Agency actions potentially affecting the
beetle and subject to NEPA review would include, but not be limited to,
any Corps levee repair or restoration projects; activities affecting
riparian vegetation conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau
of Land Management, or the Environmental Protection Agency; and
activities conducted by the Service within National Wildlife Refuges.
In the event that the beetle is delisted, we do not anticipate
substantial differences in NEPA review by Federal agencies.
Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), the Corps regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material
into waters of the United States, which include navigable waters and
adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). In general, the term ``wetland''
refers to areas meeting the Corps criteria regarding soils, hydrology,
and vegetation. Any action within the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle's habitat that has the potential to impact waters of the United
States is reviewed by the Corps under the CWA for a permit
determination. These reviews may require consideration of impacts to
riparian species (including the valley elderberry longhorn beetle), as
well as mitigation of significant impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. To the extent riparian vegetation and consequently beetle
habitat are associated with a CWA section 404 permitting action,
mitigation for those effects could be provided.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.
L. 105-57) establishes the protection of biodiversity as the primary
purpose of the Service's National Wildlife Refuge System. This
legislation lends support to various management actions to benefit the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle in refuges in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Valleys, as discussed under Factor A (see ``Conservation--
Habitat Restoration and Protection'' above). The Sacramento River NWR
was established to conserve and manage up to 18,000 ac (7,284 ha) of
riparian or floodplain vegetation from Red Bluff to Colusa in Tehama,
Glenn, and Colusa Counties. The Sacramento River NWR CCP identifies
conservation of the beetle as one of its management goals (Service
2005, pp. 1-37). CCPs for the San Luis and Merced National Wildlife
Refuges are not yet complete. The CCP for the San Joaquin River NWR
calls for surveys for the beetle, but does not call for a management
plan unless ``deemed necessary'' (Service 2006b, p. 64); however, the
refuge is proceeding with conservation efforts for the beetle, as
discussed under the Factor A, ``Conservation--Habitat Restoration and
Protection'' above. We expect conservation efforts being developed by
National Wildlife Refuges in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley to
continue to assist in conservation of the beetle.
Federally Funded Restoration Programs
The Federal Government administers a variety of programs involving
grants and loans through the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and the Service for the express purpose of promoting habitat
enhancement. Some of the actions within these programs could
potentially benefit the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program works
directly with private landowners to restore and enhance habitat for
federally listed species on their lands through the use of small
grants. However, private landowners contacted by the Service have
expressed a preference not to have elderberry shrubs planted on their
property (in spite of the value these shrubs provide for birds and
other wildlife) due to a fear of restrictive regulations and impacts to
their economic livelihood. NRCS reports that 22 of 210 easements held
under its Wetland Reserve and Emergency Watershed Protection Programs
support elderberries (NRCS 2011, p. 1). NRCS (2011, p. 2) indicates
that elderberry plantings in its Hedgerow Planting Program are
restricted to San Joaquin and Yolo Counties where safe harbor
agreements are in place. Based on responses from landowners, NRCS
believes that more elderberries would be planted on easements if the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle were delisted. The extent that such
plantings have contributed to beetle recovery could not be assessed
because no spatial data or other information are available for us to
assess.
Summary of Factor D
If the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is delisted as a
threatened species under the Act and removed from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, the greatest impact to the beetle
would be loss of the protections provided by sections 4(d) and 7(a)(2)
of the Act. Under regulations established under the authority of
section 4(d), the Service has prohibited the take of the beetle (50 CFR
17.31(a)). Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to
insure that any action that it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or
cause the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat. No other Federal or State law explicitly protects the beetle
or its habitat. The Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy
Act may continue to provide incidental benefits to the beetle when
riparian vegetation is impacted, but mitigation can meet the
requirements of these laws without necessarily benefitting the beetle.
State laws such as CESA and CEQA may continue to provide incidental
protection as described above should the beetle be delisted. On the
other hand, private landowners throughout the range of the beetle who
participate in Federal or State riparian and other vegetation
enhancement programs may be more inclined to plant elderberries on
their properties.
As discussed above (Factor A), there are a number of ongoing and
projected flood control actions, and vegetative maintenance of the
existing flood control system, that may continue to affect valley
elderberry longhorn beetle habitat, and hence the subspecies, if the
beetle is removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
However, this relative lack of regulatory protection should be judged
in light of the remaining presence of this threat.
Absent continued protection of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle under the Act, long-term protection would be most certain in
areas where the subspecies currently receives some form of protection.
As discussed above (see Estimates of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Conserved Areas section), 4 of the 26 locations of the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle include a significant component of well-
protected lands with
[[Page 60262]]
known beetle habitat, and portions of 6 others contain some well-
protected lands. Seven locations (mostly in the north Central Valley)
are managed for natural and open space values or are partially on city
parks and Forest Service lands, where the land and management status
protects against urban development, but with no specific protections
for the beetle or elderberry shrubs in particular. These latter seven
locations vary in extent from large sections of current habitat (such
as the American River Parkway) to minor portions in parks or on Forest
Service land. If the beetle were delisted, we consider the existing
regulations for the beetle, coupled with the overall extent of habitat
protection and restoration efforts discussed above, to sufficiently
protect the beetle (i.e., ameliorate the threats) into the future in
these areas. Elsewhere within the beetle's range where protections are
less, the beetle's persistence ranges from fair to good (depending on
the circumstances (see Table 2)), as well as uncertain at four
locations (see Finding section below).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
The final rule to list the valley elderberry longhorn beetle did
not include any threats under Factor E. Since listing, we have learned
that the following other factors may impact the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle: climate change, pesticides, human uses other than
those discussed under Factor B, small population size, and loss of
beetle populations due to habitat fragmentation, which is a synergistic
threat when combined with small population size (and thus a Factor E
threat discussed in this section).
Climate Change
Climate change could affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
in other ways besides the amount and distribution of habitat (see
Factor A discussion on climate change above). Changes in temperature
and precipitation patterns may cause shifts in the timing of elderberry
flowering relative to beetle emergence, or affect the relationship of
the host plant species or beetle subspecies in other ways. Talley et
al. (2006, p. 6) believed that differences in seasonal climate between
the Central Valley and coastal range encourage asynchronization of the
phenology of the listed subspecies and the common subspecies. Talley et
al. (2006, p. 15) also noted that the species (and variety) of
elderberry varies with respect to drought tolerance and elevation.
Therefore, it is possible that climate change could affect the beetle.
The magnitude of threat of climate change to the beetle in the future
cannot be assessed further at this time due to taxonomic uncertainties
within the host plant genus (Sambucus) and lack of genetic information
about the two beetle subspecies (Talley et al., 2006, pp. 7, 15).
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial info
at this time, and absent any confirming information, we conclude that
climate change is not a significant factor affecting the persistence of
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Pesticides
Since listing, we have learned that many pesticides are commonly
used within the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's range. These
pesticides include insecticides (most of which are broad-spectrum and
likely toxic to the beetle) and herbicides (which may harm or kill its
elderberry host plants). The California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) in 1997 listed 239 pesticide active ingredients
applied in proximity to locations of the beetle (Marovich and Kishaba
1997, pp. 270-275). Four of the five California Counties (Fresno, Kern,
Tulare, and Madera) that have the greatest pesticide use in California
are in the San Joaquin Valley (CDPR 2010, p. 1), where approximately 33
percent of beetle occurrences are documented (CNDDB 2010, pp. 1-201).
Many pesticide applications likely coincide with the period when adult
beetles are active, and when the beetle eggs and early larval stages
occur (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 43). These are considered the life
stages at which the beetle is most vulnerable to pesticide effects, as
they occur on the outside of elderberry stems (Talley et al. 2006a, p.
43). The pesticides, although not applied directly to beetle habitat,
may indirectly affect the beetle or its habitat if pesticides drift
from nearby locations.
Although no major issues relating to drift from agricultural
pesticides have been documented for riparian vegetation in general
(Spotts 1989, p. 524), Barr (1991, p. 40, and citing Jones & Stokes
1987) noted yellowing of plants adjacent to cultivated fields along
Middle River in San Joaquin County, and direct loss of elderberry from
herbicides on the Cosumnes River. No sign of the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle was observed near Middle River in 1991, although exit
holes and an adult had been noted in 1984-1985 (Barr 1991, p. 27).
Additionally, pesticide or herbicide use was specifically noted as a
threat in 25 of 201 CNDDB records (CNDDB 2010, pp. 12, 33, 46, 86-87,
110, 114, 116, 121, 155-158, 160-165, 169, 173-174, 192-193, 195).
Judging from the distribution of pesticide-affected locations
identified in the CNDDB, this threat can be considered widespread,
rather than localized. In most cases, however, the CNDDB notes appear
to qualify the pesticide threat as one related to proximity to
agricultural operations (a notable exception is CNDDB occurrence number
16, whose notes state, ``Many plants * * * were dead (herbicides) * *
*.'' CNDDB 2010, p. 12). The sensitivity of valley elderberry longhorn
beetles or its host plant to agricultural pesticides, and overall
effect, is uncertain.
We consult with agencies on the potential effects of some
pesticides on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle in the context of
several national-level evaluations of pesticide effects on endangered
and threatened species. For example, in 1999, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a section 7 consultation with the
Service on the registration of 15 pesticides. In this consultation, the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office provided a memorandum to the
Service's Region 1 Office in Portland, Oregon, regarding the use of
these pesticides (Service 1999b). Our 5-year review mischaracterized
the consultation (Service 2006a, p. 18), stating that a draft jeopardy
opinion was prepared; however, the consultation was never completed and
no jeopardy opinion was issued. In the memorandum, the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office provided its rationale for determining that the
registration of 7 of the 15 pesticides, and their subsequent use as
proposed by product labeling, would likely result in jeopardy to the
beetle (Service 1999b). Service biologists noted that the primary
threat to the beetle was the loss and alteration of habitat, but also
noted that insecticide use and vegetation control in agricultural areas
and along rights-of-way may be factors that could limit the beetle's
abundance and distribution, although no data were available to allow an
evaluation of potential effects (Service 1999b, pp. 77-83). Service
biologists based their rationale for the draft jeopardy determinations
on the beetle's small population status and the small, scattered
habitat sites known at the time (Service 1999b, pp. 80-83).
Although several of the seven pesticides are still widely used in
the Central Valley, the registered use of two of the seven pesticides
(Bendiocarb and Fenthion) has been revoked by the EPA and the State of
California (Kegley et al. 2008, pp. 1-46). No specific evaluation of
exposure or response of the valley
[[Page 60263]]
elderberry longhorn beetle to any of these pesticides has been
conducted.
Based on the information presented above, there is potential for
agricultural pesticides to impact the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
through drift in both the northern and southern Central Valley.
However, the concerns expressed above were never confirmed by the
Service in a final biological opinion and we otherwise lack any
information confirming that pesticide use constitutes a significant
threat to the subspecies.
Human Use
A number of the major occurrences of the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle (such as American and Sacramento Rivers, Putah Creek, and the
Feather, Stanislaus, and Kern Rivers) occur at least partially on
publicly accessible areas that are subject to intended and unintended
human uses, including biking (on and off-road), hiking, horseback
riding, associated formal and informal trails, maintenance of such
trails, camping (legal and illegal), pruning of trees (Barr 1991, pp.
40, 90-91), cutting of firewood generally, and related effects such as
fires, which continue today. On September 15, 2011, for example, nine
arson fires were set between River Bend and Hagan Parks in the American
River Parkway. Alone or in combination with other threats, and
depending on severity, these activities can, and do, kill elderberries
or reduce their health (Barr 1991, pp. 40, 27, 31, 32, 92). In some
cases, evidence of fire corresponds to negative surveys of beetles
where they formerly occurred (such as the Merced River) (Barr 1991, p.
31). Evidence of fire is also mentioned in four CNDDB records (CNDDB
2010, pp. 70, 86, 115, 202), where it appears to be associated--in some
cases--with proximity to roads and a greater perceived risk of fire
associated with traffic or roadside mowing. Pruning is identified in
five CNDDB records (CNDDB 2010, pp. 2, 12, 67, 99, 174), and several
records identify maintenance around bike and equestrian trails (CNDDB,
pp. 121, 195). Overall, Barr (1991, p. 40) found that 38 out of 230
sites showed some damage from fire or cutting.
All intended and unintended human use effects may result in
incremental losses or reduction in the amount or quality of valley
elderberry longhorn beetle habitat. While evidence exists of sporadic
and localized impacts to elderberry bushes from human uses, such as the
arsons described above, we are not aware of similar reoccurring impacts
throughout the beetle's range. Thus, based on review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we do not expect
losses associated with human use to be of such significance that they
could threaten the continued existence of the beetle currently or in
the future.
Small Population Size
Small population numbers of valley elderberry longhorn beetle host
plants, and even lower numbers of occupied host plants, constitute a
threat to the beetle at many locations, which, in turn, may result in
small beetle population sizes. However, this potential threat can be
true for many species. Additionally, Talley et al. (2006, p. 13)
concludes that low mobility, very small local populations, and
isolation of habitat patches renders beetle populations especially
susceptible to extirpation with little chance of recolonization, such
as was observed by Collinge et al. (2001) (discussed above in
``Occurrence Information and Population Size and Distribution'').
Although we do not have data from which to draw conclusions
regarding the rangewide valley elderberry longhorn beetle population
size, we nonetheless considered whether rarity poses a potential threat
to the subspecies. While small populations are generally at greater
risk of extirpation from normal population fluctuations due to impacts
such as predation, disease, changing food supply, and stochastic
(random) events such as fire, corroborating information regarding
threats beyond rarity is needed to meet the information threshold
indicating that the beetle is endangered or threatened. Many species
are naturally rare and in the absence of information identifying
threats to the species and linking those threats to the rarity of the
species, the Service does not consider rarity alone to be a threat.
Further, a species that continues to survive could be well-equipped to
continue to exist into the future even if it has always had small
population sizes, has always been rare, or has always been patchily
distributed (as is the case for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle).
Many naturally rare species have persisted for long periods within
small geographic areas, and many naturally rare species exhibit traits
that allow them to persist despite their small population sizes.
Consequently, the fact that a species is rare or has small populations
does not necessarily indicate that it may be in danger of extinction
now or in the future. We need to consider specific potential threats
that might be exacerbated by rarity or small population size (or patchy
distribution such as with the valley elderberry longhorn beetle).
Although low genetic variability and reduced fitness from inbreeding
could occur, at this time we have no evidence of such genetic problems
with the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Based on our review of valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrence
records compared to aerial imagery and other documentation, small
population size may potentially be the result of one or more threats
(as evidenced by data showing that some locations may have experienced
loss of elderberry shrubs over time). Small populations in general are
particularly susceptible to extirpation as a result of localized
stochastic events or local exposure to threats already discussed.
Several records at the Sacramento River, Colusa to American River
confluence, American River Confluence south to Delta, Bear River near
Mokelumne, Calaveras River-Stockton Diverting Canal near Linden
locations were associated with a few isolated elderberry plants or
groups of plants that appear to have been completely lost since last
observation or nearly so (i.e., since listing), and currently lack
protections or enhancement measures that would allow regeneration or
restore habitat (comparison of Service database described in the
Finding section below and Barr (1991, pp. 24, 27, 29)). Other areas
with elderberries lack beetles (see ``Population Status and Trends''
above). Talley et al. (2006a, p. 13) stated that low mobility, very
small local populations, and isolation of habitat patches renders
beetle populations especially susceptible to extirpation with little
chance of recolonization. However, the best available information does
not indicate small population size is a significant concern now, nor do
we believe it will become a significant concern in the future. This
assessment is based on our evaluation of the site-specific threats,
protections, and recovery actions that exist at given locations
throughout the species' range, and the prospectus for the beetle's
persistence into the future at those locations (see Table 2 below and
discussion in the Finding section). Additionally, we do not believe
small population size is a significant concern given current data
identifying increased number of occurrences known today as compared to
the time of listing (i.e., 201 occurrence records at 26 locations
compared to 10 occurrence records at 3 locations), as well as this
subspecies' natural, patchy distribution (as described in the
Background section above).
[[Page 60264]]
Loss of Populations Resulting From Habitat Fragmentation
As indicated under the ``Population Status and Trends'' section
above, local valley elderberry longhorn beetle populations are subject
to extirpation and subsequent recolonization, but recolonization is
only likely if there are occupied areas within about 25 mi (40 km) from
which colonizers can migrate (Collinge et al. 2001, pp. 108-110; Talley
et al. 2006a, p. 10). Collinge et al. (2001, pp. 106, 108) has
documented the long-term extirpation of the beetle from entire
watersheds due to the apparent loss of the last occupied site within
the specified distance. As previously noted, a comparison study between
1991 and 1997 data presented an overall moderately downward trend of
valley elderberry longhorn beetle occupancy, as indicated by both
short- and long-term extinctions and colonizations, by sites with
elderberry shrubs, and by occupied shrub groups within each site
(Talley et al. 2006a, p. 13). Although a downward trend was noted
(Talley et al. 2006a), this conclusion is specific to the areas
researched by Barr (1991) and Collinge et al. (2001). This observed
trend should not necessarily be extrapolated to the long-term,
rangewide status of the beetle due to the uncertainties involved in
obtaining the results (e.g., all beetle habitat surveyed by Barr (1991)
was not surveyed by Collinge et al. (2001), as further described in
``Population Status and Trends'' above).
At this time, we are unaware of any information that would support
robust conclusions regarding the extent to which local beetle
populations may become isolated from each other by distances of greater
than 25 mi (40 km). We know that there are already discontinuities of
more than this distance between some populations, especially in the
south Central Valley, as well as within major corridors. We suspect
that potential habitat fragmentation, in combination with small
population size (discussed above), results in a greater combined threat
of local extirpation in the south Central Valley. However, we have not
censused all potential habitat in tributaries or uplands that may
harbor the subspecies; additional populations not yet detected could
increase the potential for recolonization.
It is possible that some level of threat from fragmentation and
small population size (though we are uncertain of natural valley
elderberry longhorn beetle population numbers) could have always
existed. Nevertheless, our evaluation of the best available scientific
and commercial information indicate that fragmentation remains as a
threat today, and may increase in the future. However, we note that our
1980 estimates of the beetle's range were underestimates. Given our
knowledge today, the level of threat posed by fragmentation is much
reduced.
Summary of Factor E
Since listing, potential Factor E threats that could affect the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle include climate change, pesticides,
human use, loss of beetle populations due to habitat fragmentation, and
small population size.
Climate change might affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
through effects other than habitat distribution, such as shifts in the
timing of elderberry flowering relative to beetle emergence, or impacts
to the relationship of the listed and common beetle subspecies in some
other way. Based on the best available scientific and commercial
information at this time and absent any confirming information, we
conclude that climate change is not a significant factor affecting the
persistence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle has been reported from
locations adjacent to agriculture where pesticide application occurs.
Information from occurrence records and other sources indicate that
drift of pesticides into beetle habitat is of concern. However, we have
no information regarding exposure of the beetle to specific pesticides
or potential impacts to beetle populations from exposure. Although some
effects of pesticides on elderberry shrubs have been noted, no link has
been established between persistence or occurrence of the beetle and
adjacency to farmed lands that use pesticides.
Some valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrences are at least
partially on publicly accessible areas that are subject to intended and
unintended human uses, the impacts of which could result in incremental
losses or reduction in the amount or quality of beetle habitat.
However, available information indicates losses would likely not be
frequent; thus, significant losses are not expected. There is also
evidence of a variety of human use impacts involving trails, cutting,
pruning, and fire in occupied beetle locations.
Based on review of occurrence records compared to aerial imagery
and other documentation, loss of valley elderberry longhorn beetle
populations due to fragmentation (which alone, or in combination with,
other threats has the potential to result in small population size)
remains a threat currently and potentially into the future. However,
small population size is not considered a significant current or future
threat, and the threat of fragmentation is not considered significant
when taken within the context of the increased number of occurrences
known today as compared to the time of listing. Additionally, we are
unaware of any information that would support robust conclusions
regarding frequent isolations of beetle populations across the
subspecies' range, the extent to which local beetle populations may
become isolated from each other by distances of greater than 25 mi (40
km), or whether any potential threats might be exacerbated by
characteristics such as rarity or patchy distribution.
Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle. As required by the Act, we
considered the five potential threat factors to assess whether the
beetle is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. When considering the listing status of a species,
the first step in the analysis is to determine whether it is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then
the species is listed in its entirety. For instance, if the threats to
a species are acting only on a portion of its range, but they are at
such a large scale that they place the entire species in danger of
extinction, we would continue to list the entire species.
When the valley elderberry longhorn beetle was listed in 1980, it
was known from only the American River, Putah Creek, and the Merced
River in the Central Valley of California. Its two primary threats were
loss of habitat (Factor A) and inadequate regulatory mechanisms
protecting the beetle (Factor D). Compared to the three locations known
to support the beetle at the time of listing, surveys have identified
at least 26 locations that support the beetle from Shasta County to
Kern County (CNDDB 2010, pp. 1-202; Table 1). This represents a
significant increase of occurrences and a significant change in our
understanding of the subspecies' range as compared to the time of
listing.
As first introduced and described above in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section, in order to examine the scale of threats
and potential for extinction for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
within these locations and as a whole, we first
[[Page 60265]]
compiled a rangewide GIS spatial database that included all available
information on beetle records, riparian vegetation, section 7
consultations, mitigation actions, conservation and other protection
actions (including specific plantings of elderberry shrubs), current
(year 2010) aerial imagery, roadways, and near term growth (i.e.,
through the year 2020). For each of the 26 locations identified in this
rule, we used this database and supporting information to synthesize a
best professional opinion of the prospectus for persistence with
delisting at those locations, considering: (1) Current habitat; (2)
occupation records by location (presented previously in Table 1); (3)
threats; (4) protections and recovery actions; and (5) studies needed
to address uncertainties in species data, protections, threats, and
prospectus for persistence.
Aerial imagery was used to generally assess quality of habitat and
proximity to disturbances or other threats (width, extent and
continuity of riparian areas, disturbances such as trails and roads).
We also considered GIS database entries and other literature
descriptions on the size, number, and distribution of elderberry
shrubs; trends over time; and other site-specific factors (see Table
2). Location specific threats are identified for the five-factors where
appropriate or otherwise noted as pervasive threats that apply to all
locations. Protections (conservation) and recovery actions we
considered include known actions, the extent of assurance that those
actions would be implemented and, where available, the documented
effectiveness or failure of those recovery actions.
As presented in Table 2 below (Prospectus for Persistence with
Delisting column), we did not formulate quantifiable measurable
objectives for our determinations of persistence. Rather, the suite of
information was considered together and given a qualitative persistence
determination of poor, fair, average, good, or best. Several
determinations were deemed questionable due to high levels of data
uncertainty and are noted as such (uncertain); these are to be
considered a best-case scenario for the purpose of this analysis.
Occupation records were considered in terms of number and constancy
over time, with greater likelihood where such records were consistent,
recent, regular, and of more certain species identification (Table 1).
Species presence and persistence were considered less certain where
species records and habitat surveys were older, and where elevations
were higher (where the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and the
nonlisted California elderberry longhorn beetle subspecies overlap) and
there was no adult male specimen to confirm identity.
Table 2--Locations, Threats, Protections, and Summary Species Status Information for the Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle in the North Central and South Central Valleys of California
[Acronyms are defined below] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study needs (to
Site-specific address
threats (see below uncertainties in
for pervasive Protections and Prospectus for species data,
Locations \2\ threats under recovery actions persistence with protections,
Factors C, D, and delisting threats, and hence
E that apply to prospectus for
all sites) \3\ persistence)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH CENTRAL VALLEY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.a. Sacramento River (SR), Factor A: limited One small Average. Persists Continued and
Redding-Red Bluff. habitat loss from restoration with modest expanded habitat
urban development (Turtle Bay, 120 threats. or subspecies
in city and acres). Occupation at surveys to
associated bank Stillwater-Paynes include more
protection Creeks, negative tributaries.
(nonproject); surveys on Cow-
additional Cottonwood
habitat remains Creeks.
on some Infrequent
tributaries but limited surveys.
not others.
Factor C:
Argentine ants.
(Holyoak and
Graves 2010).
Factor E: human
use (recreation,
cutting).
1.b. SR, Red Bluff-Chico........ Factor A: Significant Good. Habitat Consistent habitat
relatively low conservation somewhat improved and subspecies
past loss/current easements, some by protections. monitoring.
threat; localized with restoration Status uncertain
extensive loss in to lessen effects due to age of
vicinity of small of adjacent surveys and low
city; some agriculture. frequency.
agricultural Species probably
encroachment; persists.
some bank
protection;
narrow riparian
corridor band on
mainstem and
tributaries.
Factor C:
Argentine ants
(Holyoak and
Graves 2010).
1.c. SR, Chico-Colusa........... Factor A: least Significant Good. Habitat Consistent habitat
habitat loss or conservation somewhat improved and subspecies
threat in easements, some by protections. monitoring.
mainstem, with restoration, Status uncertain
tributary to lessen effects due to age of
channelization of adjacent surveys and low
but not to agriculture. frequency.
completion; some Subspecies
bank protection/ probably persists.
flood control
noted, but no
levees.
1.d. SR, Colusa-American River Factor A: None known........ Poor. Remaining Assess enhancement
confluence. intensive habitat at risk opportunity.
agricultural due to private Limited potential
conversion, ownership, and absent levee
resulting in vegetative reconstruction/
complete riparian maintenance of setback.
vegetation loss flood control Easements for
between Colusa facilities. near term land-
and Knight's Presence side elderberries
Landing, then questionable. may help connect
sparse/limited to populations.
Sacramento, due
to past and
recent flood
control,
including
confinement by
levees.
[[Page 60266]]
1.e. SR, American River Factor A: Minimal trial Fair. Declining. Assess enhancement
confluence south. significant past areas of Remaining habitat opportunity,
and ongoing vegetation on at high risk due especially
habitat loss due levees, small to ongoing regarding the
to flood control, fraction maintenance and limited
bank protection, (estimated at uncertainties on vegetation
and upgrades; less than 1% of future potential due to
recent habitat bank length); not maintenance of enforcement of
loss associated of vegetation flood control Corps ETL;
with urban type to benefit facilities. potential for
development and beetle (i.e., not more levee
emergency levee elderberry). vegetation
repair; extensive allowance via
flood control relaxed
(confinement by maintenance.
levees, bank
protection,
devegetation);
sparse/limited/
intermittent
riparian
vegetation
remaining.
2. Thomes Creek................. Factor A: modest None known........ Fair. Status Updated habitat
rangeland/ uncertain due to and subspecies
agricultural use; lack of habitat surveys to
current and subspecies evaluate
vegetation surveys. potential species
appears limited protections.
from unknown
cause; possibly
naturally limited
elderberry to the
west by soil/
alluvium type,
lack of water.
3. Stony Creek.................. Factor A: More Some conservation Fair (perhaps Updated habitat
agriculture easements. better). Status and subspecies
compared to other Elderberry uncertain due to surveys to
watersheds in plantings near lack of habitat evaluate
immediate mouth. Status and subspecies potential species
vicinity, but not elsewhere unknown. surveys. protections.
adjacent to
riparian, plus
more persistent
water, results in
more riparian
vegetation than
Thomes but still
limited/sparse;
elderberry
verified only
near reservoir,
more suspected
habitat near DWR-
mapped riparian
area near Orland.
4. Big Chico Creek.............. Factor A: Some parkland, Good. Persistence Updated habitat
significant past especially in probable. and subspecies
loss from urban Chico. Mitigation surveys. Evaluate
development in bank nearby threats and
Chico; (Bidwell Ranch) protection needs
agriculture at least downstream of
downstream; partially offsets Chico.
agriculture continuing urban
present in lower impacts.
creek resulting
in narrow but
continuous
corridor there;
elsewhere
riparian remains
in moderate-to-
wider band (e.g.,
Bidwell Park);
abundant known
elderberry.
5. Feather River................ Factor A: past Significant Good. Existing Regular surveys.
losses due to conservation conservation Evaluate
levees/bank easements, some easements and alternatives to
protection; with restoration proximity to Bear in-place west
ongoing threats to lessen effects setback, levee
due to fix-in- of adjacent Wildlands bank, improvements
place west levee agriculture. indicate probable (ring/J\3\) to
proposal; future persistence. avoid growth
threats reduced inducement and
by protection/ urban
recovery actions encroachment.
resulting in
locally wider
riparian band in
portions, but
narrow riparian
elsewhere.
Factor C:
Argentine ants.
Factor E: human
use (recreation,
trails, fire,
camping, cutting).
6. Butte Creek.................. Factor A: losses/ Central Valley Good (but Updated habitat
devegetation Joint Venture uncertain). and subspecies
downstream of easement in Pending habitat surveys; evaluate
Chico; some portion of canyon and subspecies threats and
remnant habitat (a few elderberry surveys or protection needs
may remain in plantings above resurveys; downstream of
Butte Sink area; it). Otherwise assessment of Chico, especially
best riparian unknown. elderberry in formerly
vegetation is in success in occupied sink
lower canyon protected canyon area.
(upstream area), area.
but this is
currently
unoccupied/
unsurveyed.
7. Yuba River................... Factor A: flood None known. Nearly Uncertain Habitat and
control; all private. occurrence of subspecies
aggregate/gold subspecies and surveys. Local
mining; habitat, hence threats and
agriculture; questioned benefit
elderberry presence/ evaluation.
present but persistence. Protection and
unsurveyed, Single survey restoration
suspected to be date/exit hole opportunity ID as
minor component for power line appropriate.
of overall area not near
riparian. river (some from
dead wood).
8. Bear River................... Factor A: past Setback levee Good. Persistence Habitat and
losses due to project with probable. subspecies
levees/bank elderberry surveys. Identify
protection; plantings at maintenance
associated mouth; wildlands within levees,
agricultural bank nearby. and evaluate
development. protective
measures such as
relaxed
maintenance.
[[Page 60267]]
9. Lower American River......... Factor A: some Extensive riparian Best. Extensive Continued
flood control. plantings, habitat, monitoring.
Factor C: monitoring; protections with Determine funding
Argentine ants. setback levees; minimal threats. mechanism of
Factor E: human management plan High occupancy. management plan
use (recreation, (implementation Persistence implementation.
trails, fire, uncertain). likely.
camping, cutting).
10. Upper American River Factor A: urban None known. Status Fair overall (some Habitat and
vicinity (Miner and Secret development. of undeveloped may be better or subspecies
Ravine, Coon, Anderson and Factor E: human portions unknown. worse). Habitat surveys. Evaluate
Linda Creeks). use (trails). limited; affected protections and
by adjacent development
development threats.
northwest to
Interstate 80.
11. Putah Creek................. Factor A: narrowed Partly within park Good. Better Continued
corridor in major lands. Unknown in habitat, less monitoring.
private land portions within protection but Identify and
nearby private land. reduced threats. evaluate
agriculture Management plans Persistence protections in
(general threat). exist; assurances likely. private areas.
Factor C: to implement
Argentine ants. unknown.
Factor E: human
use
(recreational,
similar to lower
American River,
above).
12. Cache Creek................. Factor A: None known........ Good (at least Habitat and
Extensive past partially). subspecies
riparian Persistence surveys.
vegetation loss probable. Restoration and
due to adjacent enhancement
agriculture, potential
flood control, investigation.
aggregate mining,
resulting in
limited habitat
in the lower 2/
3rds of creek.
13. Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks.. Factor A: None known........ Good. Incremental Habitat and
agriculture, losses due to subspecies
flood control, urban development surveys. Identify
channelization, expected. Some current
suburban decline, but protections or
development; persistence needs in private
threat of habitat likely to occur areas.
loss may be somewhere in area.
limited due to
adjacent rugged
terrain; some
tributaries
unchannelized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH CENTRAL VALLEY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Cosumnes-Laguna-Dry Creeks.. Factor A: urban 5,500 acres lower Good. Expect Habitat and
development at watershed improving habitat subspecies
Rancho Murieta- preserve; 780 but not yet surveys.
Wilton-Galt; acres upper restored. Former Evaluation of
agriculture/urban watershed Laguna records largely threats and
threat partly Creek Mitigation outside of protection needs
offset by Bank; existing preserved or outside preserve
preservation on beetle habitat protected lands. in private areas.
part of Cosumnes (elderberry) Habitat potential
only, not Laguna- unquantified. within preserved
Dry or Cosumnes Protection in area.
outside preserve; private land and
riparian developed
corridors corridors unknown.
currently narrow,
some devegetated
and not yet
restored.
Preserve lands
include some
waterfowl
management, but
elderberry there
is undetermined.
15. Mokelumne-Bear Rivers....... Factor A: limited Approximately 197 Good. Persistence Habitat and
urban development acres of likely if beetle subspecies
(Lockeford-Lodi, restoration. SHA: is present and surveys. Updated
concentrated one enrollee for either evaluation of
subdivision); 300 acres with 12 protections exist threats and
moderate elderberry or absence of protection needs.
agriculture; shrubs, of 3,500 elevated threat
riparian acres allowed in in the future.
vegetation SHA.
remaining
somewhat wider
and more intact/
mature on most of
the Mokelumne
(but not at
Lockeford); Bear
riparian looked
better than most
tributaries on
aerials, but Barr
(1991) found no
elderberry in
riparian
vegetation.
16. Stanislaus River............ Factor A: Two elderberry Good. However, low Comprehensive
agriculture and planting sites occupancy. habitat and
urban losses. (Mohler, Persistence subspecies
Moderate-to-thin McHenry). Partial deemed probable surveys. Identify
riparian failure at based on further
vegetation Mohler. Some elderberry restoration and
remains but parks may have abundance. protection
varies with other protections Subspecies ID measures as
location. but not much is questionable near appropriate.
Tributaries known. Goodwin.
channelized and
devegetated.
Factor C:
Argentine ants.
[[Page 60268]]
17. Upper Stanislaus hills Factor A: urban None known........ Average. Recent More thorough
(vicinity above and between New development/ adult sightings habitat and
Melones and Don Pedro ranchette, (exit holes) subspecies
Reservoirs, including Sullivan especially around suggests surveys to verify
Creek). Sullivan Creek; persistence extent outside of
some significant probable due to development.
habitat loss, but terrain, limited Species ID (adult
similar road access, and sighting not yet
unsurveyed distance from verified)
landscape appears population center. especially since
to remain at elevation, may
unperturbed, be unlisted
scattered in California
hills. elderberry
longhorn beetle
species.
18. Calaveras River-Stockton Factor A: None known, but Fair. Presence Habitat and
Diverting Canal. agriculture, likely completely possible but subspecies
flood control unprotected, questionable. Old surveys
(diversion mostly private. records and lack throughout.
channel, levee, of habitat Threat evaluation
maintenance survey. Linden and protection in
activities); some area had records private areas as
adjacent urban but vegetation warranted.
use; but habitat looks thin now
still present to (denser upstream,
a variable extent thinner or absent
(good to thin); downstream).
corridor
narrowed,
significant
portion sparse.
19. Tuolumne River.............. Factor A: Several floodway Fair (or better). Habitat and
extensive restorations Uncertainty due subspecies
aggregate mining, include to old subspecies surveys. Identify
urban conservation surveys. No restoration and
development, and easements; one current beetle protection
agriculture (mining reach--7/ habitat opportunities
depending on 11 segment) has (elderberry) specific to
location. Mostly 87 acres, 160 information. beetle.
narrow habitat elderberry Presence and
remaining, with plants; other persistence
some areas of reaches unknown. questionable.
better quality.
20. Merced River................ Factor A: None for beetle. Fair. Old Habitat and
extensive Channel subspecies subspecies
aggregate mining, restoration on surveys. No surveys. Identify
intensive less than 5% of current beetle restoration and
agriculture, length; habitat protection
caused losses; protections (elderberry) opportunities.
narrow mainstem unknown. information.
riparian; split Presence and
channels persistence
channelized and questionable.
devegetated.
Factor C:
Argentine ants.
21. Kings River................. Factor A: None known........ Uncertain. Depends Habitat and
extensive on remaining species surveys.
agriculture, habitat quantity/ Assess potential
resulting in quality, causes of loss of
narrow riparian subspecies species
corridor resurvey, or occupancy.
downstream and recolonization Identify remedial
near dam; wider event. Some adult measures specific
in split channel IDs in this to cause(s).
area; sparse but location have
unimpacted been questioned.
upstream.
Subspecies may be
extirpated
(negative 2010
survey) for
unknown reasons.
22. Kaweah River................ Factor A: Some sites Fair. Likely Habitat and
development protected as declining with subspecies
variable (limited mitigation for growth of Visalia surveys. Identify
above Isabella; impacts of Corps or increase in restoration and
extensive dam works; other agricultural protection
agriculture and protections intensity. opportunities.
significant urban unknown. Persistence and
below Isabella), presence
resulting in uncertain. ID not
sparse/narrow/ confirmed.
intermittent
riparian corridor
downstream in
split channels;
partially
channelized/
largely
devegetated.
23. Tule River-Deer Creek....... Factor A: None known........ Uncertain due to Evaluate human
encroachment by age/infrequency usage and
agriculture/urban of surveys, identify
development; limited habitat, management needs.
trails/human use absence of adults Habitat and
in corridor; to confirm ID. subspecies
flood control surveys. Identify
activities; enhancement and
narrow sparse restoration
riparian opportunities.
vegetation.
Factor C:
Argentine ants.
24. Kern River (excluding Factor A: urban/ None known........ Fair (and Habitat and
Caliente Creek). suburban declining). subspecies
development; Narrow surveys. Assess
roads and trails; intermittent and identify
vegetation corridor of restoration and
clearing and questionable protection
diversion quality includes opportunities
downstream. some elderberry, that could
Factor E: human but heavily enhance habitat.
use (trails). impacted.
Persistence and
presence
(including
species ID)
uncertain.
25. Caliente Creek.............. Factor A: nearby None known........ Unknown due to Conduct more
roadway; some suspect/old thorough habitat
trails in a record (exit hole and subspecies
portion of condition; 1,000- surveys to verify
riparian 2,400 foot extent of
vegetation; elevation). No elderberry, exit
sparse information holes in
residential and before 1991. ID mainstem, and
ranching use; questioned. tributaries.
completely Adult ID
channelized and especially since
devegetated in at elevation may
Central Valley; be unlisted
portion in California
foothills has elderberry
intermittent longhorn beetle
riparian species.
vegetation,
infrequent
elderberry on
creek, and on
nearby upland and
entering
tributary.
[[Page 60269]]
26. San Joaquin River........... Factor A: Parkway from Fair (in best Conduct further
intensive Millerton to areas), otherwise habitat and
agriculture; some Fresno; some mostly poor. subspecies
urban development protections but Sparse surveys. Assess
(Fresno); flood not necessarily elderberry, low restoration
control for the beetle. occupancy. May opportunities for
throughout; Limited Central improve with elderberry,
portion nearest Valley Joint planting age or including the
to Friant has Venture riparian other nonbeetle- addition of
riparian easements, mostly specific elderberry to
corridor, but not elderberry. restoration. ongoing or
much of this Some elderberry proposed
system is plantings on NWRs. restorations.
completely
devegetated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table acronyms: ID--taxonomic identification of the subspecies, whether listed or common beetle; ETL--Corps
Engineering Technical Letter; DWR--Department of Water Resources; SHA--Safe Harbor Agreement; NWR--National
Wildlife Refuge; J and ring--structural levee alternatives, sometimes located away from a floodway or riparian
zone, as such these alternatives could provide local flood protection to higher value urban areas (such as
communities of Live Oak and Gridley west of the Feather River), and avoid the impacts and need for vegetative
maintenance associated with improving the levee in its current location (also known as ``in place'' levee
improvements).
\2\ The locations presented in this table are based on available data that provide detailed information about
valley elderberry longhorn beetle presence. Additional locations were not included in this table due to a lack
of sufficient information that provides certainty on valley elderberry longhorn beetle presence (areas with
extremely limited habitat, locations that are exclusively at higher elevation that abut with the range of the
California elderberry longhorn beetle, a record of a single shrub, etc.).
\3\ Pervasive threats (all sites): Factor C--The specific threat of Argentine ant denotes those sites with
documented presence; there has been inadequate or no sampling at other sites to make a determination. However,
based on the widespread infestation of Argentine ant in nursery stock and lack of control, we believe this
threat applies to all sites until shown otherwise; Factor D--The inadequacies of regulatory mechanisms, as
described in the text, applies to a variable extent to all sites; Factor E--The specific threats noted are
instances of human use noted in literature or aerial imagery; however, human use likely applies to portions of
other sites. Additionally, as described in the text, Factor E includes other factors such as habitat
fragmentation, small population size, and climate change that apply to all sites, and pesticide effects that
applies to all sites with the possible exception of some foothill areas.
The potential for valley elderberry longhorn beetle persistence
varies among the 26 locations and especially between the north and
south Central Valley. The following paragraphs provide a summary
rangewide evaluation of the beetle and its habitat based on the five-
factor analysis presented above.
Summary--North Central Valley
The north Central Valley has seven major locations, or portions
thereof, where the beetle's persistence in the foreseeable future is
likely due to a combination of: (1) Low threats and adequate protection
measures; and (2) multiple and recent records, some with confirmation
of adult beetles (Sacramento River north of Colusa, the lower American,
Feather, and Bear Rivers, and Big Chico, Cache, and Putah Creeks). The
protection measures include an array of existing and initially restored
beetle habitat, and many have a wide or relatively unchanged riparian
vegetation corridor with limited adjacent land-use, suggesting
development or agriculture-related threats to these locations are
reduced. Two additional locations in the north Central Valley were also
deemed likely to persist, although both are smaller, and there is more
uncertainty with respect to presence and threat due to the age of
records, recent development, or uncertainties about threats and the
need for protections (Butte Creek, Ulatis-Green Valley Creeks).
Even in these north Central Valley locations where valley
elderberry longhorn beetle persistence is most likely, the extent of
elderberry shrubs has not yet been fully quantified nor consistently
monitored. Threats, and the likelihood of valley elderberry longhorn
beetle persistence, vary markedly along the Sacramento River. Threats
are minimal and beetle persistence is considered at least average north
of Colusa to Redding, where there is protected habitat on refuge lands
and reports of beetle occupation (River Partners 2004a). Threats are
increased and beetle persistence is considered fair to poor on the
Sacramento River south of Colusa to its Delta confluence; most of this
area has no woody vegetation of any kind due to extensive rock bank
protection. As shown by confirmed adult male specimens (Table 1,
location 1.e), a remnant population of the beetle persisted on the
Sacramento River near West Sacramento until recently, when the
remaining habitat was lost at the expense of recent flood control
improvements. With the possible exceptions of the lower American River,
the best known location of the beetle, every other location (including
portions of locations in which we have deemed the beetle likely to
persist) in the valley proper (the valley floor of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys combined) has a major section lacking riparian
vegetation that almost certainly does not support the beetle due to
complete absence of habitat in that section (Table 2).
Finally, there are no systems in the north Central Valley that are
completely free of threats. In the American River and Putah Creek, for
example, there are no, or limited, threats associated with development
and agriculture; however, these areas continue to be subject to human
use threats. There are management plans for the American River and
Putah Creek locations (systems) that appear to be protected in their
current ownership; however, the legal assurances for this protection
and funding for implementation in perpetuity are unknown. Virtually all
major rivers and tributaries in the Central Valley (both north and
south) are subject to some level of effect from flood control
operations and vegetative maintenance that affects or suppresses
riparian vegetation (and associated beetle habitat if present),
although this effect varies among locations and reaches within a
location.
Summary--South Central Valley
In the south Central Valley, the locations considered to have a
good or average potential for persistence of valley elderberry beetle
populations are those immediately south of Sacramento to about
Stanislaus County (Cosumnes-Laguna-Dry Creeks, Mokelumne-Bear Rivers,
lower Stanislaus River, Upper Stanislaus hills). However, the
protections of existing riparian vegetation (including beetle habitat)
are not well known for many of these riparian corridors. The Cosumnes
River Preserve mentioned elsewhere in this rule covers only a portion
of the Cosumnes River (perhaps 20 percent of its length), yet beetle
records and habitat are largely outside the Preserve. Much
[[Page 60270]]
of the apparently intact riparian vegetation the Service has identified
on aerial photos along the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Stanislaus Rivers
is of unknown ownership (public or private) and protective status.
Additionally, the actual extent of elderberry shrubs and beetle
occupancy has not, to our knowledge, been determined. Records of the
beetle are known in each of these locations since listing, but are
infrequent (5 to 6 occurrence years in the 30 years since listing; see
Table 1). Even less is known about the beetle on the Calaveras River,
where records (including an adult) were known from isolated habitat in
largely devegetated portions of the river near Linden.
None of the other locations in the south Central Valley appear to
have a good likelihood of beetle persistence (Table 2). This is because
of the age of records, in combination with:
(1) Significant habitat loss (such as Kaweah, Merced, Tule, and
Kern Rivers) since listing;
(2) Recent negative surveys (such as Kings River--Holyoak and
Graves 2010, p. 8; San Joaquin River reaches 1B through 6--Kucera et
al. 2006, p. 9 and River Partners 2007, p. 10);
(3) Low occupancy (Stanislaus River; Holyoak and Graves 2010 p. 7,
River Partners 2007, p. 10);
(4) Absence of recent information (Calaveras River; exit hole last
seen in 2000; adult in 1984) since listing;
(5) Limited overall riparian vegetation (most locations, especially
lower rivers, which tend to be devoid of any woody vegetation); or
(6) Lack of protections or habitat quantification (most sites,
except for San Luis NWR) (for additional location-specific rationales,
see Table 2). Where there is habitat--often in higher elevations--there
is a lack of positive subspecies identification via sightings of adult
male specimens where the two subspecies likely overlap (higher
elevation sites, such as Caliente Creek, upper American River vicinity,
Kaweah River upstream of Lake Isabella). Even for the Stanislaus Hills
location, which is a location that we presume the beetle persists, we
have not been able to verify the identity of the adult sighting for
this proposed rule.
According to Table 2, a prospectus for persistence that is
considered poor, fair, average, or good (as compared to best) does not
mean that the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is likely to be
extirpated from the south Central Valley without continued protections
of the Act. In those instances, a lower than best prospectus is usually
due to the diminished condition of the riparian corridor, higher
magnitude of threat, lack of known protections, and lack of recent
habitat or species information. Overall, there is not a significant
difference in the prospects for persistence from north to south, with
88 percent of locations in the north having the prospect of fair,
average, good, or best, and 77 percent of locations in the south
habitat a prospect of fair, average, or good.
As a whole, the south Central Valley (as compared to the north
Central Valley) exhibits reduced valley elderberry longhorn beetle
presence, density, and quality of riparian vegetation on major rivers
and tributaries, and largely channelized and devegetated tributaries,
particularly on the valley floor. These characteristics may at least
partially explain why the beetle occurrences are rarer in the south as
compared to the northern portion of its range.
Accordingly, we believe the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
populations in most areas in the south Central Valley are likely to be
small and subject to occasional episodes of extirpation. Whether or not
recolonization occurs would depend on proximity to other beetle
populations within dispersal distance, which would be those in foothill
habitats above and between the major reservoirs. Due to the lack of
adult male specimens (or verification where such records exist) from
these foothill areas, it is not known whether these foothill
populations are the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn
beetle or the more common California elderberry longhorn beetle.
However, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle's long-term persistence
in the south Central Valley depends not only on recolonization from the
nearest beetle population within dispersal distance, but also on the
presence of habitat and protection of habitat from threats. In general,
the amount of riparian vegetation and associated beetle habitat in the
south Central Valley, particularly the valley floor, is much more
limited than in the north, and habitat protections are largely unknown
for most known beetle locations (Table 2).
Rangewide Discussion
Rangewide, we believe that valley elderberry beetle populations at
13 locations (or portions of these locations) have an average or better
likelihood of persistence after delisting (9 in the Sacramento Valley;
4 in the San Joaquin Valley). The remaining 13 populations (4 in the
Sacramento Valley; 9 in the San Joaquin Valley) are less likely to
persist (deemed fair-to-poor, some currently declining, with many of
questionable current existence due to age of records, elevation and
absence of confirming adult specimens, or apparent complete loss of
habitat; see Table 2). Some of the locations in both the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys, where persistence is deemed likely in portions of
the location (such as Sacramento River, Redding to Colusa), also have
been determined to have major sections where persistence is unlikely
due to habitat loss since listing or last observation of the beetle
(such as Sacramento River, Colusa to American River and south to Delta;
see Table 2 for other examples).
The uncertainties identified in this analysis can only be resolved
through additional study. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrence
data (based on the CNDDB data available) have some amount uncertainty
due to:
(1) The difficulty in verifying the species (because it spends most
of its life inside elderberry stems, identification is mostly by
finding exit holes, which can be misidentified);
(2) The age of records (largely 1991 and earlier) and limited
current and frequent surveys;
(3) The fact that some records that were based on exit holes
occurred at higher elevations, which--in the absence of adult
specimens--could also be the unlisted subspecies;
(4) The complete loss of elderberry shrubs from some of the 26
locations during the period since observations were recorded;
(5) In some of the 26 locations during the period since
observations were made, more recent surveys did not find the beetle
where elderberries still persist; and
(6) Detection is limited at locations with low or naturally low
beetle population sizes. More data, over a longer time period, would
improve our confidence in persistence determinations for locations with
small population sizes.
Similarly, there is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of recent
restoration efforts. Although approximately 21,536 ac (8,715 ha) of
riparian vegetation have been protected through purchase or
conservation easement, the proportion of this protected habitat that
consists of elderberry shrubs, or would support elderberry, is unclear
(i.e., beyond the 4,000 ac (1,619 ha) of existing plantings).
Similarly, we still lack comprehensive information on the general
effectiveness of habitat restoration and protection efforts, especially
since the existing elderberry plantings are relatively recent and much
is unoccupied. Even where plantings have resulted in beetle occupation,
the rate of occupation varies (less than 0.1
[[Page 60271]]
percent to 7.9 percent of shrubs with exit holes; River Partners 2004a,
pp. 2-3). The ability of these areas to support long-term populations
of the beetle has yet to be established, largely because the
restorations are still too young (at most 13 years old), and survey
efforts too infrequent (1-2 times) to make a determination of long-term
persistence or stability.
There is also uncertainty as it relates to the actual amount of
riparian vegetation (or other upland vegetation type) within the valley
elderberry longhorn beetle's range that can support elderberry and,
potentially, the beetle. As presented above, only a portion of
protected land is riparian, and only some supports (or has
characteristics to support) elderberry. Central Valley-wide, about 1
million ac (404,686 ha) of riparian vegetation have been lost since the
turn of the century, and about 132,000 ac (53,418 ha) of that has been
relatively recent (since 1960) (Geographic Information Center 2003).
Based on our evaluation of available information for this analysis, we
determined that of the approximately 132,000 ac (53,418 ha) of riparian
vegetation left, a small portion of which is protected (21,536 ac
(8,715 ha)), and a subset of this amount is actually elderberry (at
most 5,000 to 7,000 ac (2,023 to 2,833 ha), but likely less).
Admittedly, elderberries do occur outside of true riparian vegetation,
and both riparian and nonriparian vegetation may support the beetle in
its range outside the Central Valley proper. However, the extent of the
beetle in these other areas (i.e., uplands in the Central Valley,
foothills outside the Central Valley) would require more study
involving adult male collection and identification to resolve with
certainty. Even if there were significant numbers of elderberry shrubs
outside of riparian systems, the extent to which these are used by
beetle compared to riparian systems, and the extent to which these
would offset shrub losses within riparian areas, has not been
ascertained. Since listing, the rate of loss of riparian vegetation has
slowed compared to historical times.
Most valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat, occurrences, and
locations are outside of the 21,536 ac (8,715 ha) of protected habitat,
and have no (or no known) protections. The restoration efforts and
protected habitat are largely concentrated on refuge lands, which are a
minority of the current range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Of the 23 beetle locations discovered since listing, 12 include habitat
that is unprotected or whose protections are unknown. Resolving the
uncertainties of the extent of threats and protections may be useful in
identifying locations where additional protective measures would most
benefit the beetle. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, it is clear
that protections appear to be greatest in the north Central Valley
where more occurrences are known.
Of the 26 known locations, four include a significant component of
well-protected lands with known beetle habitat mainly as State or
Federal wildlife areas, and portions of six others contain some well-
protected lands. All or portions of seven locations are managed for
open space or natural values, or are partially on city parks or Forest
Service lands where the particular threat of habitat loss is reduced,
but other threats from human use remain. All or portions of seven other
locations throughout the Central Valley include private lands where
(despite lack of formal protections) threats are presently reduced due
to their remote or rural nature associated with topography, which
limits the more pervasive threats of agricultural and urban
development, or are currently the subject of a safe harbor agreement.
The majority of locations contain some lands without protections, some
of which are private or designated as floodways that could experience
activities that affect beetle habitat. These unprotected locations
encompass most of the range of the subspecies including riparian zones
in major drainages. Therefore, we conclude that agricultural and urban
development, levees, and flood control protection remain as threats to
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle in relation to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range, both currently and in the future (Factor A). However, these
habitat-based threats are not considered significant when taken within
the context of the increased number of beetle occurrences known today
as compared to the time of listing.
We have found nothing to indicate that the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle is threatened by overutilization, for any purpose
(Factor B).
While the valley elderberry longhorn beetle may be preyed on by
Argentine ants (Factor C), and there is some evidence to indicate that
a negative association between presence of the beetle and presence of
the ant at some local sites may be related to ant density, the beetle
has persisted alongside the ant in larger areas, such as Putah Creek
and the American River Parkway, for over 10 years. As there have been
no dense concentrations of the ants reported, predation is not believed
to be a significant threat.
In the absence of protection under the Act, the regulatory and
other legal mechanisms protecting the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
from habitat loss would be minimal, except in areas such as
conservation easements, mitigation banks, and National Wildlife Refuges
specifically managed for the protection of the beetle (Factor D).
Riparian vegetation restoration on private lands is implemented under a
variety of State and Federal programs. While we would not expect a
delisting of the beetle to affect the amount of riparian vegetation
restored under these programs. If the beetle were delisted, we
anticipate future losses of beetle habitat due to loss of regulatory
protection under the Act, especially under sections 7 and 10, but that
loss may be offset to a small degree by an increased private landowner
willingness to include elderberries in riparian vegetation restoration
on their lands. However, removal of the protections of the Act could
result in increased losses where the protective provisions of the Act
serve to deter habitat modification or destruction on otherwise
unprotected private lands. Based on the best available data, we believe
it is possible that habitat losses of this type may increase if the
subspecies were delisted; thus, there may need to be a commensurate
increase in restoration and conservation efforts beyond the State and
Federal programs mentioned above to offset this anticipated increased
loss. We do not consider the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to be a threat currently nor in the future for the areas
providing protection for the beetle and its habitat (such as portions
of locations along the Sacramento River between Red Bluff-Chico and
Chico-Colusa, the Feather River, and the Cosumnes-Laguna-Dry Creeks
locations). For areas within the beetle's range where protections are
less, the prospectus for persistence is considered poor at one location
(the Colusa-American River confluence of the Sacramento River),
uncertain at four locations (Yuba River in the north Central Valley and
the Kings River, Tule River-Deer Creek, and Caliente Creek in the south
Central Valley), and fair, average, good or best at all remaining
locations (Table 2).
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle has been reported from
locations adjacent to agriculture where pesticide application may
occur. Pesticides are rarely applied directly to riparian vegetation
or, if they are used within riparian vegetation, are believed to be
normally applied in a highly controlled manner to target species. This
reduces
[[Page 60272]]
some of the potential exposure of the beetle to pesticides. Because of
the proximity of beetle habitat to agriculture, the potential for
pesticide exposure through drift remains and has been noted in
association with a number of occurrences of the beetle. However, the
relationship of persistence or occurrence of the beetle to adjacency of
farmed lands that utilize pesticides has not been thoroughly examined
(Factor E).
Climate change might affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
through habitat effects (i.e., potential changes in temperature and
precipitation patterns that could affect elderberry growth; Factor A),
or other direct and indirect impacts to the subspecies, such as shifts
in the timing of elderberry flowering relative to beetle emergence, or
affects to the relationship of the listed and common beetle subspecies
in some other way. We are not aware of information that would allow us
to make a meaningful prediction about the extent of threats related to
climate change (Factors A and E).
Some valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrences reside at least
partially on publicly accessible areas that are subject to intended and
unintended human uses, the impacts of which could result in incremental
losses or reduction in the amount or quality of beetle habitat. Our
evaluation suggests that this type of loss continues among the most
important locations of the beetle such as the lower American River,
Putah Creek, and other locations. However, available information
indicates losses would likely not be frequent; thus, significant losses
resulting from human use (including trails, cutting, pruning, and fire)
in occupied locations of the beetle are not expected (Factor E).
The best available information suggests that many local beetle
populations are isolated from others by distances of greater than the
estimated 25 mi (40 km) dispersal distance needed for recolonization.
Based on review of occurrence records compared to aerial imagery and
other documentation, loss of populations due to fragmentation, and
small population size as a result of potential threats to the
subspecies, we anticipate these impacts may continue in the foreseeable
future (Factor E), although they are not considered significant when
taken within the context of the increased number of beetle occurrences
known today as compared to the time of listing.
In this proposed rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present,
and future threats faced by the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and
conclude that the Act's threatened designation no longer correctly
reflects the current status of this subspecies. While there are minimal
surveys to comprehensively evaluate current presence or population
trends over time, we believe the available data are sufficient to
conclude that the beetle persists in several additional major locations
that were not known at the time of listing, including some locations
where habitat restoration and protection has taken place (i.e.,
Sacramento River, Feather River, and some adjacent tributaries).
Records since listing show the beetle may currently occupy most of the
26 locations identified and continues to persist in these locations, as
is expected for some period of time into the future.
This accumulation of records over the past 30 years establishes
that the beetle's range is larger than was known at the time of
listing, albeit patchily distributed in small populations. However, our
listing anticipated the finding of additional populations in its
determination of the threatened status (Service 1980, p. 52804) and
identified these suspected locations in our Recovery Plan (Service
1984, pp. 32-34). Specifically, there are 26 locations that have been
documented to have been occupied since the subspecies was listed
compared to 3 locations known at the time of listing. These 26
locations occur throughout the Central Valley, compared to the 3
locations known only from the lower American River, Putah Creek, and
the Merced River (Talley et al. 2006a, p. 23; Service 2006a, p. 5;
CNDDB 2010, pp. 1-202).
Notwithstanding data uncertainties and the absence of protections
or enhancements at many locations, we believe sufficient habitat will
remain within this range into the foreseeable future and the subspecies
no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the
Act. Additionally, we believe the beetle will continue to persist based
on: (1) The increase in number of beetle occurrence records; (2)
increase in number of locations the beetle is found, including over a
larger range then what was known at the time of listing; (3) past and
ongoing riparian vegetation restoration; and (4) the persistence of
elderberry shrubs in these restored areas, as well as a variety of
public lands managed for natural values as open space.
Significant Portion of Its Range
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines
``species'' as follows: ``The term `species' includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS]
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.'' The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not
defined by the statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations:
(1) The consequences of a determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range, but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a
portion of a range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz.
Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to
list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 2008). The
Service had asserted in both of these determinations that it had
authority, in effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as
defined by the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act.
Both courts ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious
on the grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous
language of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language
to allow protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent
with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that
once a determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies,
or DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's
protections applied consistently to all members of that species
(subject to modification of protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two
[[Page 60273]]
situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify for
listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' Based
on this interpretation and supported by existing case law, the
consequence of finding that a species is endangered or threatened in
only a significant portion of its range is that the entire species will
be listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's
protections will be applied across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to
the 2007 Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, long-term agency
practice has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial
opinions that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an
independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we
next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use
a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It would not be
meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a
portion of the range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a
negligible increase in extinction risk would result from its loss.
Because nearly any portion of a species' range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species' viability, use of such a low
threshold would require us to impose restrictions and expend
conservation resources disproportionately to conservation benefit:
listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On the other
hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136
(9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the
remainder of the range to be
[[Page 60274]]
endangered; rather, the complete extirpation (in a hypothetical future)
of the species in that portion would be required to cause the species
in the remainder of the range to be endangered.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
We consider the ``range'' of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle
to be the Central Valley of California, from Shasta to Kern Counties.
Because the beetle is dependent on the presence of elderberry shrubs,
we consider suitable habitat within the range to be those areas
currently supporting elderberry. We consider potentially suitable
habitat within the range to be those areas likely to support elderberry
shrubs within the foreseeable future. We base this on restoration or
protection efforts for riparian vegetation, or on plans for future
elderberry restoration efforts.
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle's range can naturally be
divided into the Sacramento Valley to the north, and the San Joaquin
Valley to the south. In Table 2, we conducted a spatial evaluation of
the level of threat and extent of protective measures at each of the 30
locations where the beetle is known to occur (which include 5 separate
locales along the Sacramento River that when combined result in a total
of 26 beetle locations) in order to determine if any portion of the
range were at risk of local extinction. Based on this assessment, there
does not appear to be a significant concentration of threats in any
portion of the species range. Of the 30 locations, 17 locations occur
in the north Central Valley, and 15 of those (88 percent) have a fair,
average, good, or best likelihood of persistence. Thirteen locations
occur in the south Central Valley, and 10 of those (77 percent) have a
fair, average, or good likelihood of persistence. One location in the
north Central Valley has a poor likelihood of persistence, and four
locations (three in the south Central Valley) are uncertain due to the
age of surveys, infrequency of surveys, limited habitat, or absence of
adult beetles to confirm identification. Because high percentages of
beetle locations in both the north and south Central Valleys have a
fair, average, or good likelihood of persistence, this suggests no
specific concentration of threats occur in the south Central Valley,
nor within any given area within the range of the subspecies.
Therefore, we conclude that no portion of the beetle's range is
impacted to the extent that it warrants an analysis of its biological
significance to the subspecies.
It is our conclusion, based on our evaluation of current and future
threats to beetle in the north Central Valley and south Central Valley
locations (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section and
Table 2), that the subspecies no longer meets the definition of
endangered or threatened under the Act. Our estimates of the
persistence of the beetle in those locations (Table 2) confirm that
while a variety of threats affect the beetle in all or parts of its
range, it nevertheless is likely to persist throughout its range.
Summary of Finding
According to 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be delisted if the
best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the
species is neither endangered nor threatened because of: (1)
Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original data for
classification of the species. We consider ``recovery'' to apply to the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle because habitat protection and
restoration efforts in some areas provide assurance that the subspecies
and its habitat will continue to persist throughout its range, and
additional discoveries of previously unknown beetle populations reduce
the overall threat of extinction.
Based on our re-evaluation of the existing or potential threats to
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle alone or in combination, we
considered:
(1) The number and geographic range of additional locations
throughout the Central Valley identified since the time of listing; and
(2) The amount of riparian vegetation restored and protected under
numerous programs since the time of listing, again most particularly in
the Sacramento Valley.
Based on these factors, we find the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle no longer meets the Act's definition of a threatened (or
endangered) species. Accordingly, we propose to remove it from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of This Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove
the valley elderberry longhorn beetle from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, and would also revise 50 CFR 17.95(i) to remove
designated critical habitat for the beetle. The prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly section 7 and
section 9, would no longer apply to the valley elderberry longhorn
beetle. Removal of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife would not supersede any State
regulations.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior,
in cooperation with the States, to implement a system to monitor for
not less than 5 years the status of all species that have recovered and
been delisted. The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is
to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from
risk of extinction after it no longer has the protections of the Act.
We are to make prompt use of the emergency listing authorities under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well-
being of any recovered species. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly
requires us to cooperate with the States in development and
implementation of PDM programs, but we remain responsible for
compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively
engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of
other entities that are expected to assume
[[Page 60275]]
responsibilities for the species' conservation, post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle's draft PDM plan, required
under section 4 of the Act, is designed to monitor the threats to the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle by detecting changes in its status
and habitat throughout its known range. The draft PDM plan is available
for public comment concurrent with publication of this proposed rule in
the Federal Register. The primary goal of the final PDM Plan is to
monitor the species to ensure that any substantial decline in the
species occurrences or any increases in threats are detected, and to
take measures to halt either so that re-proposing it as a threatened or
endangered species is not needed. Both this proposed rule and the draft
PDM Plan acknowledge the lack of information available in certain areas
(biological and geographical) for this subspecies. Regardless, we are
moving forward with a proposed delisting rule for the beetle because we
believe sufficient habitat will remain within this range into the
foreseeable future and the subspecies no longer meets the definition of
endangered or threatened under the Act. Additionally, we believe the
beetle will continue to persist based on: (1) The increase in number of
beetle occurrence records; (2) increase in number of locations the
beetle is found, including over a larger range then what was known at
the time of listing; (3) past and ongoing riparian vegetation
restoration; and (4) the persistence of elderberry shrubs in these
restored areas, as well as a variety of public lands managed for
natural values as open space (see the Rangewide Discussion under the
Finding section above).
The draft PDM Plan provides information on the goals, duration,
implementation, methods, and reporting schedule for monitoring the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle. If the final determination is to
delist the subspecies, upon publication of a final delisting rule, the
Service will convene a Science Panel (see section 4.7 in the Draft PDM
Plan) to help develop a detailed monitoring plan, which includes site-
specific monitoring plans for each monitoring site established
throughout the subspecies' range. This detailed monitoring plan will be
developed based on site-specific parameters, including a standardized
monitoring protocol. Additionally, there will be recognition of an
adaptive management concept in the detailed monitoring plan that
outlines how we may potentially revise the monitoring protocols based
on new information received. The draft PDM Plan provides direction for
the following measures to be implemented for a minimum of 10 years
following delisting:
(1) Identifying thresholds that trigger an extension of monitoring,
adaptive management changes at protected sites, or a status review.
(2) Continued monitoring of currently known occurrences, and
conducting additional surveys to identify occurrences in new locations.
(3) Refining the population and habitat baseline published at time
of delisting against which subsequent increases or decreases in
occurrences can be compared.
(4) Determining overall and rangewide trends over 10 years of
monitoring (with at least 3 of those years consisting of normal
rainfall and air temperatures, specifically including trends regarding
persistence of the beetle within watersheds and within protected areas
such as conservation banks, select established mitigation sites, CDFG
Wildlife Areas, the Sacramento NWR, and the San Joaquin River NWR.
(5) Conducting studies to determine the continued amount (such as
number of habitat acres or number of individual plants) and
effectiveness of restoration efforts after delisting.
(6) Developing an adaptive management strategy.
(7) Creating a science panel to address issues that arise
throughout the PDM process.
Examples of specific monitoring objectives or activities described
in the draft PDM Plan that address threats discussed in this proposed
delisting rule include:
(1) Collecting data variables that will indicate the abundance of
suitable beetle habitat potentially available and occupied by the
beetle (Factor A);
(2) Counting the number and condition of elderberry shrubs to
determine the overall quality of the host plant for the beetle (Factor
A);
(3) Monitoring management efforts by land owners to maximize
efficiency of overall expenditures and help the Service, science
experts, and cooperating partners reprioritize management efforts
(Factors A, C, D, and E);
(4) Sampling potential presence of Argentine ants and European
earwigs to determine potential site-specific impacts or an increase in
magnitude of this potential threat (Factor C);
(5) Monitoring at known locations in addition to monitoring
attempts to locate new occurrences, particularly for expanding our
knowledge of the subspecies in the southern portion of its range
(Factor E);
(6) Determining effectiveness of riparian enhancement and
restoration projects (Factor A); and
(7) Collecting data on potential threats, such as implementation or
changes in agriculture or other land uses adjacent to the monitoring
sites, signs of levee maintenance, changes or impacts from construction
or use of roads and trails, fire and fire control, vegetation clearing
or control, and herbicide use (Factors A, C, D, and E).
The loss of a valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrence or
location could be an indication of a problem. Therefore, if a beetle
location or an important area (such as a large block of beetle habitat)
is lost, the potential causes will be investigated and remedial action
taken as outlined in the draft PDM Plan. The PDM Plan would accomplish
the objectives through cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies; private partners; and species experts, thus
fulfilling the goal to prevent the species from needing Federal
protection once again, per the Act. We seek public and peer reviewer
comments regarding the draft PDM Plan, including its objectives and
procedures (see Public Comments section above).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
[[Page 60276]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320 implement provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB regulations
at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as the obtaining
of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions
posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure
requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the
persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency
within any 12-month period. For purposes of this definition, employees
of the Federal Government are not included. We may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have 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. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244;
October 25, 1983).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically
organized; (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (c)
Use clear language rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into short
sections and sentences; and (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments
by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help
us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible.
For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry ``Beetle, valley
elderberry longhorn'' under ``INSECTS'' from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(i) by removing the critical habitat entry for
``Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus).''
Dated: September 12, 2012.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23843 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P