[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28403-28413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13250]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for the Plant Eriogonum apricum (inclusive of vars.
apricum and prostratum) (Ione Buckwheat) and Threatened Status for the
Plant Arctostaphylos myrtifolia (Ione Manzanita)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We determine endangered status pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for Eriogonum apricum (inclusive
of vars. apricum and prostratum) (Ione buckwheat). We also determine
threatened status for Arctostaphylos myrtifolia (Ione manzanita). These
two species occur primarily on soils derived from the Ione Formation in
Amador and/or Calaveras counties in the central Sierra Nevada foothills
of California and are imperiled by one or more of the following
factors--mining, clearing of vegetation for agriculture and fire
protection, disease, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, habitat
fragmentation, residential and commercial development, changes in fire
frequency, and continued erosion due to prior off-road vehicle use.
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect these species.
Random events increase the risk to the few, small populations of E.
apricum. This action implements the protection of the Act for these
plants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite
130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Tarp (telephone 916/979-2120)
and/or Jason Davis (telephone 916/979-2749), staff biologists at the
above address (facsimile 916/979-2723).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia (Ione manzanita), Eriogonum apricum var.
apricum (Ione buckwheat), and Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum (Irish
Hill buckwheat) are found primarily in western Amador County, about 70
kilometers (km) (43.5 miles (mi)) southeast of Sacramento in the
central Sierra Nevada foothills of California. Most populations occur
at elevations between 90 and 280 meters (m) (295 and 918 feet (ft)). A
few isolated occurrences of A. myrtifolia occur in adjacent northern
Calaveras County.
Both species included in this rule occur primarily on ``Ione
soils'' which have developed along a 40 mile stretch of the Ione
Formation. The Ione Formation, comprised of a unique Tertiary Oxisol,
consisting of fluvial (stream or river produced), estuarine, and
shallow marine deposits (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1989), was
developed under a subtropical or tropical climate during the Eocene
(35-57 million years ago). The Ione soils in the area are coarse-
textured and exhibit soil properties typical of those produced under
tropical climates such as high acidity, high aluminum content, and low
fertility (Singer 1978). These soils and the sedimentary deposits with
which they are associated also contain large amounts of commercially
valuable minerals including quartz sands, kaolinitic (containing a
hydrous silicate of aluminum) clays, lignite (low-grade coal), and
possible gold-bearing gravels (Chapman and Bishop 1975). The nearest
modern-day relatives to these soils occur in Hawaii and Puerto Rico
(Singer 1978).
The vegetation in the Ione area is distinctive enough to be
designated as ``Ione chaparral'' in a classification of plant
communities in California (Holland 1986). Stebbins (1993) characterized
the Ione chaparral as an ecological island, which he defined as a
relatively small area with particular climatic and ecological features
that differ significantly from surrounding areas. This plant community
occurs only on very acidic, nutrient-poor, coarse soils, and is
comprised of low-growing, heath-like shrubs and scattered herbs
(Holland 1986). The dominant shrub is Arctostaphylos myrtifolia, which
is narrowly endemic to the area. Ione chaparral is restricted in
distribution to the vicinity of Ione in Amador County, and a few local
areas of adjacent northern Calaveras County where the community is
estimated to cover 2,430 hectares (ha) (6,002 acres (ac)) (California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1997). The endemic plants that grow
here are thought to do so because they can tolerate the acidic,
nutrient-poor conditions of the soil which exclude other plant species.
The climate of the area may be moderated by its location due east of
the Golden Gate (Gankin and Major 1964, Roof 1982).
Discussion of the Two Species
Charles Parry (1887) described Arctostaphylos myrtifolia based upon
[[Page 28404]]
material collected near Ione, California. Subsequent authors variously
treated this taxon as Uva-ursi myrtifolia (Abrams 1914), A. nummularia
var. myrtifolia (Jepson 1922), Schizococcus myrtifolius (Eastwood 1937,
cited in Gankin and Major 1964), and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ssp.
myrtifolia (Roof 1982). Philip Wells (1993), in his treatment of
California Arctostaphylos, maintained the species as A. myrtifolia.
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is an evergreen shrub of the heath family
(Ericaceae) that lacks a basal burl. Attaining a height of generally
less than 1.2 m (3.9 ft), plants appear low and spreading. The bark is
red, smooth, and waxy. Olive green, narrowly elliptic leaves are 6 to
15 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.6 inches (in.)) long. Red scale-like
inflorescence (flower cluster) bracts are 1 to 2 mm (0.04 to 0.08 in.)
long. White or pinkish urn-shaped flowers appear from January to
February. The fruit is cylindric. The species depends almost entirely
on periodic fire events to promote seed germination (Wood and Parker
1988). Arctostaphylos myrtifolia can be distinguished from other
species in the same genus by its smaller stature and the color of its
leaves.
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is reported from 17 occurrences (CNDDB
1997). Because most of these occurrences are based on the collection
localities of individual specimens, it is uncertain how many stands
these 17 occurrences represent. Arctostaphylos myrtifolia may occur in
about 100 individual stands which cover a total of about 404.7 ha
(1,000 ac) (Roy Woodward, Bechtel, in litt. 1994). It occurs primarily
on outcrops of the Ione Formation within an area of about 91 square
(sq.) km (35 sq. mi) in Amador County. In addition, a few disjunct
populations occur in Calaveras County. The populations range in
elevation from 60 to 580 m (190 to 1900 ft), with the largest
populations occurring at elevations between 90 and 280 m (280 and 900
ft) (Wood and Parker 1988). Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is the dominant
and characteristic species of Ione chaparral, where it occurs in pure
stands. It also occurs in an ecotone (transition area between two
adjacent ecological communities) with surrounding taller chaparral
types, but it does not persist if it is shaded (R. Woodward, in litt.
1994). Mining, disease, clearing of vegetation for agriculture and fire
protection, habitat fragmentation, residential and commercial
development, changes in fire frequency, and ongoing erosion threaten
various populations of this plant (CNDDB 1997; Ed Bollinger, Acting
Area Manager, BLM, Folsom Resource Area, in litt. 1994; M. Wood, in
litt. 1994) and existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately
protect the species. The amount of A. myrtifolia habitat already lost
to mining cannot be quantified because information regarding the total
mineral production as well as the total acreage of land newly disturbed
by a mining operation is proprietary (Maryann Showers, California
Department of Mining and Geology, pers. comm. 1994). Although the exact
area of habitat lost is unknown, a significant loss of habitat has
occurred (Roof 1982; Stebbins 1993; Michael K. Wood, Botanical
Consultant, in litt. 1994). Arctostaphylos myrtifolia occurs primarily
on private or non-Federal lands. One occurrence on BLM land is within
the Ione Manzanita Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Two
additional occurrences are partially on BLM lands. Four small, pure
populations and several smaller, mixed populations also occur on the
State-owned Apricum Hill Ecological Reserve managed by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (Wood and Parker 1988).
Eriogonum apricum comprises two varieties--Eriogonum apricum var.
apricum and E. apricum var. prostratum. Descriptions are provided below
for each of the varieties.
Howell (1955) described the species Eriogonum apricum (Ione
buckwheat) in 1955 based on a specimen collected in the foothills of
the Sierra Nevada near Ione, Amador County, California. Myatt (1970)
described a variety of the Ione buckwheat, E. apricum var. prostratum
(Irish Hill buckwheat) in 1970. According to the rules for botanical
nomenclature, when a new variety is described in a species not
previously divided into infraspecific taxa, an autonym (an
automatically generated name) is created. In this case, the autonym is
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum.
Both varieties, Eriogonum apricum vars. apricum and prostratum, are
perennial herbs in the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). Eriogonum
apricum var. apricum is glabrous (smooth, without hairs or glands) and
grows upright to 8 to 20 centimeters (cm) (3 to 8 in.) in height. Its
leaves are basal, round to oval, and 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in.) wide.
The calyx (outer whorl of flower parts) is white with reddish midribs.
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum flowers from July to October, and is
restricted to nine occurrences occupying a total of approximately 4 ha
(10 ac) (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 1984) on otherwise barren
outcrops within the Ione chaparral. Of the nine known occurrences of E.
apricum var. apricum, one is partially protected by CDFG (CNDDB 1997).
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum occurs primarily on private or non-
Federal land; BLM manages one occurrence. Mining, clearing of
vegetation for agriculture and for fire protection, habitat
fragmentation, increased residential development, and erosion variously
threaten the occurrences of this plant. Existing regulatory mechanisms
do not adequately protect this species.
Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum has smaller leaves, a prostrate
(low growing) habit, and an earlier flowering time than E. apricum var.
apricum. The two known occurrences of E. apricum var. prostratum are
restricted to otherwise barren outcrops on less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) in
openings of Ione chaparral on private land. Mining, inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, habitat fragmentation, erosion, and random
events threaten the occurrences of this plant.
Previous Federal Action
Federal government actions on both plants began as a result of
section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. The
Smithsonian Institution presented this report, designated as House
Document No. 94-51, to Congress on January 9, 1975. The report included
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia, Eriogonum apricum var. apricum and E.
apricum var. prostratum as endangered species. We published a notice on
July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), of our acceptance of the report of the
Smithsonian Institution as a petition within the context of section
4(c)(2) (petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the
Act) and our intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa
named therein. We included the above three taxa in the July 1, 1975,
notice. On June 16, 1976, we published a proposal (41 FR 24523) to
determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be endangered
species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list of 1,700 plant taxa
was assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the
Smithsonian Institution and us in response to House Document No. 94-51
and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. We included
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia, E. apricum var. apricum, and E. apricum var.
prostratum in our June 16, 1976, proposal.
We summarized general comments we received in response to the 1976
[[Page 28405]]
proposal in an April 26, 1978, rule (43 FR 17909). The Endangered
Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that we withdraw all proposals
over 2 years old. The Act gave proposals already more than 2 years old
a 1-year grace period. In a December 10, 1979, Federal Register notice
(44 FR 70796), we withdrew our June 16, 1976, proposal, along with four
other proposals that had expired.
We published a notice of review for plants on December 15, 1980 (45
FR 82480), that identified those plants currently being considered for
listing as endangered or threatened. We included Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia, E. apricum var. apricum, and E. apricum var. prostratum as
category 1 candidates for Federal listing in this document. Category 1
taxa were those taxa for which we had on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing
proposals but for which we are precluded from issuing proposed rules by
higher priority listing actions. Our November 28, 1983, supplement to
the notice of review (48 FR 53640) made no changes to the designation
for these taxa.
We revised the plant notice of review again on September 27, 1985
(50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993
(58 FR 51144). In these three notices, we again included Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia, Eriogonum apricum var. apricum and E. apricum var.
prostratum as category 1 candidates. In our February 28, 1996, combined
animal and plant notice of review (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the
designation of multiple categories of candidates, and only former
category 1 species are now recognized as candidates for listing
purposes. We included all three taxa as candidates in that notice.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make
certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their
receipt. Under section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments, all petitions
pending on October 13, 1982, are treated as having been newly submitted
on that date. This was the case for Arctostaphylos myrtifolia,
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum and E. apricum var. prostratum, because
we accepted the 1975 Smithsonian report as a petition. On October 13,
1982, we found that the petitioned listing of these species was
warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. We published a
notice of this finding on January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a finding
requires recycling the petition, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act. We reviewed the finding annually in October of 1983 through
1994.
We published a proposal to list Eriogonum apricum (inclusive of
vars. apricum and prostratum) as endangered and to list Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia as threatened on June 25, 1997 (62 FR 34188). We based the
proposal on information supplied by reports to the CNDDB, and
observations and reports by numerous botanists.
Processing of this final rule conforms with our Listing Priority
Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on May 8, 1998 (63
FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will process
rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency
rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to processing final rules
to add species to the Lists, processing proposed rules to add species
to the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions (to add
species to the Lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species),
and processing a limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or
reclassify species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed
or final rules to designate critical habitat. Processing of this final
rule is a Tier 2 action.
We updated this rule to reflect any changes in distribution,
status, and threats that occurred since publication of the proposed
rule and to incorporate information obtained during the public comment
period. This additional information did not alter our decision to list
the two species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published in the June 25, 1997, Federal
Register (62 FR 34188), we requested all interested parties to submit
factual reports or information that might contribute to the development
of a final rule. The public comment period closed on August 25, 1997.
We contacted appropriate State agencies, county and city governments,
Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested
parties and requested comments. We published a newspaper notice in the
Calaveras Enterprise on July 8, 1997, the Calaveras Prospect and
Stockton Record on July 10, 1997, and in the Amador Ledger Dispatch on
July 11, 1997, which invited general public comment.
In accordance with interagency policy published on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinions of three independent and
appropriate specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial
data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population status, and
supportive biological and ecological information for the three proposed
plants.
Only one of the three requested reviewers provided comments. This
reviewer supported the listing of both species addressed in this rule
and commented specifically on Arctostaphylos myrtifolia. The reviewer
wished to clarify any confusion that readers of the proposed rule may
have had regarding the taxonomy of A. myrtifolia given the numerous
name changes since 1887. The reviewer emphasized that this taxon is
distinct and cannot be confused with any other manzanita. The numerous
name changes stem from differing opinions among botanists regarding the
relationship of this species to other California manzanitas.
The reviewer stated that Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is adapted to
periodic fire, more specifically, fire recurring probably every 5 to 20
years. Recent suppression of the historic fire frequency has
facilitated the establishment of fungal pathogens contributing to the
demise of A. myrtifolia. The reviewer emphasized that the species could
face serious decline in the future without proper fire management, that
is, controlled burning during the appropriate time of the year and
under proper climatic conditions. We incorporated the comments of the
reviewer into the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
of this rule.
During the comment period, we received comments (i.e., letters,
phone calls, and facsimiles) from a total of 16 individuals or agency
or group representatives concerning the proposed rule. Some people
submitted more than one comment to us. Seven commenters supported the
listing, four commenters opposed the listing, and five commenters were
neutral. One commenter stated his willingness to work with Amador
County, larger landowners, including mine operators, and us to develop
a habitat conservation plan for the long-term benefit of both species.
We organized opposing comments and other comments questioning the
proposed rule into specific issues. We summarized these issues and our
response to each as follows:
Issue 1: Several commenters questioned the adequacy and
completeness of the scientific evidence reported in the proposed rule.
Commenters stated that listing the two plants was premature due to the
lack of
[[Page 28406]]
comprehensive and current science to support the listing.
Service Response: In Accordance with the ``Interagency Cooperative
Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act,''
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), we
impartially review all scientific and other information to ensure that
any information used to promulgate a regulation to add a species to the
list of threatened and endangered species is reliable, credible, and
represents the best scientific and commercial data available. We used
information received from the CNDDB, knowledgeable botanists, and from
studies specifically directed at gathering information on distribution
and threats to the species addressed in this final rule. We received
information from Federal, State, and local agencies, and consulted
professional botanists during the preparation of the proposed rule. We
documented destruction and loss of habitat and extirpation of
populations of these two plants from a variety of causes. We sought
comments on the proposed rule from Federal, State, and county entities,
species experts, and other individuals. We have incorporated into the
final rule all substantive new data received during the public comment
period. Specific information received that supports listing the two
plant species is summarized in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section.
Issue 2: One commenter stated that the total extent of known
populations of Eriogonum apricum as cited in the proposed rule is
incorrect. This commenter further stated that there are 10 populations
of E. apricum alone at the Irish Hill project site. Two commenters
stated that several populations of E. apricum var. apricum have been
discovered growing in Sacramento County, several miles north of the
city of Ione, along the Amador/Sacramento County line.
Service Response: Neither commenter provided site-specific
information. We are aware of the 10 populations of E. apricum at the
Irish Hill project site; we referred to these populations in the
proposed rule as one occurrence in the ``Discussion of the Two
Species'' section. An occurrence may have several populations within
it. Because we have received only anecdotal reports of new locations,
we cannot confirm or refute the reports of E. apricum var. apricum in
Sacramento County. The discovery of new populations of E. apricum var.
apricum in Sacramento County, north of the city of Ione, along the
Amador/Sacramento County line, however, is consistent with a verified
occurrence of this species within 1,000 m (3,280.8 ft) of the
Sacramento County line northwest of the city of Carbondale on the Ione
Formation. The Ione Formation occurs in Sacramento County within the
general vicinity of the reported sighting. We believe that undocumented
populations of E. apricum var. apricum likely occur within Sacramento
County, but given the limited amount of potential habitat in Sacramento
County, we do not believe that these potential occurrences represent a
significant expansion of the overall range of the species, or that they
warrant a change in the status of the species.
Issue 3: Several commenters stated that Eriogonum apricum vars.
apricum and prostratum and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia are not restricted
to ``laterite'' (containing an iron-rich subsoil layer) soils as
presented in the proposed rule. In addition, several commenters stated
that the proposed rule inaccurately stated that the soil on which the
two species grow was developed during the Eocene.
Service Response: We received substantial evidence during the
comment period to document that Eriogonum apricum vars. apricum and
prostratum and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia occur on a much wider range of
substrates than was thought at the time we prepared the proposed rule.
However, none of this new information contradicts the claim that all
three taxa occur predominantly on soils developed on various strata of
the Ione Formation, or that the plants are restricted to a narrow range
in western Amador County. The relationship between substrate and the
distribution of these plants, however strong the correlation, is not
the reason we proposed these plants for listing. The specific threats
these taxa face are identified in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section.
Issue 4: One commenter stated that the greatest potential threat to
Eriogonum apricum is residential development. The commenter further
stated that well-planned mining with reclamation plans that take E.
apricum into account may be the best chance for the species' survival.
Another commenter asserted that the statement in the proposed rule that
the Ione buckwheat and Ione manzanita are imperiled by mining is an
inaccurate statement. The same commenter also noted, however, that
``because of requirements of species diversity and percent of
vegetative cover on mined lands disturbed since 1976 . . . Ione
manzanita and Ione buckwheat are not species that can be considered in
new reclamation plans.''
Service Response: We agree that residential development poses a
significant long-term threat to these species given the substantial
commercial and residential growth of nearby Sacramento. However, the
more immediate threat to the Ione buckwheat and Ione manzanita is the
continued extraction of mineral resources from soils that support these
species. Ninety-five percent of all lands that support Eriogonum
apricum and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia are in private ownership subject
to ongoing and future mining activities. Mining operations are not
required under State law to include locally native plants into their
reclamation plans if these species are not compatible with the desired
land use of the reclaimed site (e.g., grazing, water storage, or
intensive agriculture). For a more detailed description of the threats
these species face, see factors A and D in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section.
Issue 5: A few commenters stated that there are good opportunities
to reestablish Arctostaphylos myrtifolia on reclaimed mining areas when
a natural seed source occurs nearby or through the spreading of seeds
by mine operators.
Service Response: We are unaware of any studies that document
successful long-term reestablishment of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
populations on reclaimed mining areas. Mining operations in the Ione
area typically remove the kaolinitic clay minerals and quartz sand that
the species requires for long-term viability. Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
has been shown to reestablish on fire breaks and similar situations
where the original substrate was not removed, and plants have also
established on waste rock piles. We are not aware of any scientific
studies on the success of transplanting or seeding the plants under
field conditions. Moreover, the long-term viability of the plants which
have established on disturbed areas is unknown. Attempts to grow both
Eriogonum apricum and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia off of their
specialized substrate have been unsuccessful. Transplanted seedlings of
E. apricum grew for only about 3 years before dying. Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia seedlings have survived only about 10 years (Roger Raiche,
Horticulturalist, Univ. of California Botanical Garden, Berkeley, in
litt. 1997). For a more complete discussion on this topic, please see
factors D and E in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''
section.
[[Page 28407]]
Issue 6: Two commenters stated that there are adequate regulatory
mechanisms to protect Eriogonum apricum vars. apricum and prostratum
and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia. These commenters believe that, through
compliance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Amador
County has created ordinances and permitting procedures that adequately
protect these species.
Service Response: We believe that the existing regulatory
mechanisms provided in the State, local, and county regulations are
inadequate to protect these three plants. Both CEQA and SMARA can allow
the destruction of these three plant taxa without adequate mitigation
or avoidance. For a complete discussion on this topic, see factor D in
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section and the
``Available Conservation Measures'' section.
Issue 7: One commenter stated that listing will inevitably move
private property into government ownership. Another commenter
questioned what sorts of activities could continue on private land
should these species be formally listed.
Service Response: The Act does not restrict the damage or
destruction of listed plants due to otherwise lawful private activities
on private land beyond any level of protection that may be provided
under State law. Listing the two species as threatened or endangered
will not regulate mining or land clearing for farming, grazing, or fire
protection on private land with no Federal involvement. Other
activities that do not violate the taking prohibitions of section
9(a)(2) of the Act, along with prohibited activities, are discussed
further in the ``Available Conservation Measures'' section. Those
populations of plant species that occur on Federal lands may or may not
be affected by some human activities. If a Federal agency makes the
determination that an activity may affect a population of a listed
plant species, the Federal agency is required to consult with us on the
effects of the proposed action.
Issue 8: One commenter questioned how landowners will know if their
land uses will affect the three plants if critical habitat is not
designated.
Service Response: The public has access to general locational
information on all three of these plants through the CNDDB. In
addition, individuals owning land in these counties who believe that
their actions or activities may result in harm to one of these plants
may, if they desire to help conserve these species, contact us for
technical assistance. We seek cooperation with private landowners on
surveys or other conservation efforts. The complete file for this rule
is available for public inspection, and does contain general
information about where the species occur. We are always willing to
assist the public in matters aimed at protecting sensitive species. See
the ``Critical Habitat'' section for further discussion of our decision
not to designate critical habitat for these species.
Issue 9: One commenter inquired whether private landowners would be
allowed to participate in the development of a recovery plan for these
species.
Service Response: The recovery planning process will involve
species experts, scientists, and interested members of the public in
accordance with the interagency policy on recovery plans under the Act,
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). The information and public
education needs for successful recovery of these species are many, and
we will address these needs in the recovery plan.
Issue 10: One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be
withdrawn because we lack the authority under the Commerce Clause of
the Constitution to regulate species that are found solely in one State
and are neither harvested for commercial purposes nor transported
across state lines.
Service Response: A recent decision in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (National Association of
Homebuilders v. Babbitt, 130 F. 3d 1041, D.C. Cir. 1997) makes it clear
in its application of the test used in the United States Supreme Court
case, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), that regulation of
species limited to one State under the Act is within Congress' commerce
clause power. On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court declined to accept an
appeal of this case (118 S. Ct. 2340 1998). Therefore, our application
of the Act to Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum is
constitutional.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we have determined that Arctostaphylos myrtifolia should be
classified as a threatened species and Eriogonum apricum (inclusive of
vars. apricum and prostratum) should be classified as an endangered
species. We followed the procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) implementing the listing provisions
of the Act. A species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1).
These factors and their application to Arctostaphylos myrtifolia C.
Parry (Ione manzanita) and Eriogonum apricum J. Howell (inclusive of
vars. apricum and prostratum R. Myatt) (Ione buckwheat) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Their Habitat or Range
Nearly all populations of both plant species occur on private or
non-Federal land. The primary threat facing both species is the ongoing
and threatened destruction and modification of their habitat by mining
for silica sand, clay, lignite, common sand and gravel; and reclamation
of mined lands involving establishment of vegetation with which these
species cannot co-exist. A lesser degree of threat is posed by
commercial or residential development, clearing for agriculture and
fire protection, and continued erosion due to previous fireline
construction and driver training for California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CDFFP) employees.
The habitat of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum
occurs in areas that contain valuable minerals. Clay mining began in
the Ione area around 1860. Since that time, the Ione area has produced
about a third of the fire clay in California (Chapman and Bishop 1975).
Lignite, a low-grade coal, also has been mined in the Ione area since
the early 1860s, initially for fuel, but more recently for wax used for
industrial purposes. Chapman and Bishop (1975) reported the Ione
lignites were the only lignites used commercially in the United States
in the production of a specialized wax (montan wax). Quartz sand used
in making glass containers, and laterite used for making cement also
are commercially mined in the Ione area (Chapman and Bishop 1975).
Common sands and gravels are also mined for various uses. Mining of all
of these deposits has resulted in the direct removal of habitat for
both plant species (Wood and Parker 1988; V. Thomas Parker, Professor
of Biology, San Francisco State University, in litt. 1994; M. Wood, in
litt. 1994). Strip mining of silica for glass and clay for ceramics and
industrial filters has extirpated (caused extinction of) populations of
A. myrtifolia north and south of Highway 88 (Roof 1982).
By 1982, a significant amount of habitat already had been lost
(Roof 1982, Stebbins 1993; M. Wood, in litt. 1994). The exact amount of
habitat loss
[[Page 28408]]
to date cannot be quantified because much information regarding the
total mineral production as well as the total acreage of land newly
disturbed by a mining operation is proprietary (M. Showers, pers. comm.
1994). Fifteen active surface mines on private land near Ione continue
to remove the habitat of both plants; approved reclamation plans
identify surface removal of greater than 1,400 ha (3,500 ac) (CDFG
1991, Mining Reports 1976-1993; V.T. Parker, in litt. 1994; M. Wood, in
litt. 1994). Based on an estimate derived from mining reports on file
at California Department of Geology and Mines, over half of the Ione
chaparral habitat, numerous stands of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia, and
most of the occurrences of Eriogonum apricum occur within areas that
will be impacted by the 15 mines (Mining Reports 1976-1993). Mining has
eliminated several populations of A. myrtifolia south of Ione since
1990 (V.T. Parker, in litt. 1994). If approved, the East Lambert
Project, a proposed open pit to mine clay, lignite, and silica, would
remove part of a population of A. myrtifolia. Clay mining threatens one
of the two remaining occurrences of E. apricum var. prostratum (CDFG
1991). The second occurrence is not protected and potentially could be
mined (CDFG 1991). Most of the nine occurrences of E. apricum var.
apricum occur on private land that is not protected and could be mined.
As discussed in factor D of this section, mining results in
conversion of former habitat to rangeland, pasture, and other
agricultural uses; landowners do not restore the original plant
community that was lost when the area was mined. Additionally, once the
area is mined, the specialized substrate required by the plants may no
longer be present. This type of disturbance permanently precludes
restoration of habitat suitable for Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and
Eriogonum apricum. To a lesser extent, land conversion to grazing and
agriculture also has degraded or destroyed the habitat for these plants
(Wood and Parker 1988; V.T. Parker, in litt. 1994; M. Wood, in litt.
1994). Both activities continue to pose threats to the habitat of the
subject plant taxa.
Commercial and residential development also threatens the habitat
of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia. In 1993, a 43 ha (106 ac) parcel in the
city of Ione reported to have A. myrtifolia was cleared, presumably to
facilitate future development (Randy L. Johnsen, Ione City
Administrator, in litt. 1994). The Amador County master plan has zoned
an area in the northern Ione chaparral near Carbondale for industrial
uses. This area of about 75 ha (185 ac) is proposed to be developed
over the next 10 years (Ron Mittlebrunn, Amador Council of Economic
Development, pers. comm. 1994). Zoning for most lands outside the city
of Ione permits a density of one house on 16 ha (40 ac) (Gary Clark,
Amador County Planning Department, in litt. 1994). Habitat loss and
degradation outside the city of Ione results from development of small
ranchettes and associated clearing for fire protection, pastures,
buildings, and infrastructure (G. Clark, in litt. 1994). Clearing
destroys individual plants of both species and fragments and degrades
the remaining habitat.
Mining operations, land clearing for agriculture, and commercial
and residential development, have fragmented and continue to fragment
and isolate the habitat of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia in Amador County.
Habitat fragmentation may disrupt natural ecosystem processes by
changing the amount of incoming solar radiation, water, wind, and/or
nutrients (Saunders et al. 1991), and further exacerbates the impacts
of mining, off-road vehicle use, and other human activities.
Training activities by the CDFFP caused the degradation of the
population of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia occurring on the BLM Ione
Manzanita ACEC. Building firelines and conducting driver training
courses resulted in a criss-crossing of roads and trails within the
ACEC that reduced and fragmented the habitat (BLM 1989). Although these
practices were discontinued in 1991, the roads have not revegetated
naturally, and continued erosion of the roads and adjacent habitat
remains a concern (E. Bollinger, in litt. 1994). The BLM has requested
our technical assistance regarding the restoration of A. myrtifolia to
the ACEC (E. Bollinger, in litt. 1994).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not currently known to be a factor for the two
plants. However, increased publicity from the proposed and final
listing rules may result in unrestricted collecting of Eriogonum
apricum for scientific or horticultural purposes or excessive visits
(and possibly trampling) by individuals interested in seeing rare
plants.
C. Disease or Predation
Livestock graze where one population of Eriogonum apricum var.
prostratum occurs, but grazing is not considered as harmful (CNDDB
1997). An unidentified fungal pathogen has caused major die-back of
partial or entire stands of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia throughout its
range (Wood and Parker 1988; M. Wood, in litt. 1994). The majority of
populations of A. myrtifolia show signs of die-back. The fungal disease
is a serious problem for the populations south of Ione (M. Wood, pers.
comm. 1994). Stands along Highway 88 that were healthy a few years ago
are apparently being killed with little evidence of seedling
regeneration (Neil Havlik, Solano County Farmland and Open Space
Foundation, pers. comm. 1994). The fungal problems are clearly due to
senescence (extreme aging) of older individuals and pathogen loads that
build up with crowding and accumulation of organic debris due to fire
suppression (R. Raiche, in litt. 1997). To learn more about the
management needs of A. myrtifolia, Wood and Parker conducted a series
of controlled burns to test the regeneration of stands that had no,
partial, and complete die-back. Stands that the fungus completely
killed before burning did not regenerate. Healthy and partially
affected stands regenerated, but study results did not determine
whether this regeneration will result in healthy stands (M. Wood, in
litt. 1994).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Eriogonum apricum vars. apricum and prostratum are listed as
endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (chapter
1.5 section 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and Title
14 California Code of Regulations 670.2). Individuals are required to
obtain a management authorization from CDFG to possess or ``take'' a
listed species under the CESA. Although the ``take'' of State-listed
plants is prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act, chapter
10 sec. 1908 and CESA, chapter 1.5 sec. 2080), State law exempts the
taking of such plants via habitat modification or land use changes by
the owner. This State law does not necessarily prohibit activities that
could extirpate this species. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a
State-listed plant grows on his or her property, State law requires
only that the landowner notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance
of changing the land use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (Native
Plant Protection Act, chapter 10 sec. 1913). Ten days may not allow
adequate time for agencies to coordinate the salvage of the plants.
Moreover, salvage is an outdated and biologically inappropriate
mitigation that is inconsistent with measures implemented through
section 7 of the Act. California Senate Bill 879,
[[Page 28409]]
passed in 1997 and effective January 1, 1998, requires individuals to
obtain a section 2081(b) permit from CDFG to take a listed species
incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and requires full mitigation
of all impacts and successful implementation of all measures feasible.
The ability of these requirements to protect species has not been
tested, and we will need several years to evaluate their effectiveness
in conserving species.
The California Environmental Quality Act of the California Public
Resources Code (chapter 2 sec. 21050 et seq.) requires a full
disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects.
The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the
project is designated as the lead agency and is responsible for
conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other
agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section
15065 of the CEQA guidelines, now undergoing amendment, requires a
finding of significance if a project has the potential to ``reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.''
Species that are eligible for listing as rare, threatened, or
endangered are given the same protection as species officially listed
under the State or Federal governments. Once significant effects are
identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation for
effects through changes in the project or deciding that overriding
considerations make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, the
State may approve projects that cause significant environmental damage,
such as the destruction of State-listed endangered species. The
protection of Eriogonum apricum var. apricum, E. apricum var.
prostratum, and Arctostaphylos myrtifolia under CEQA is, therefore,
dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency.
Section 21080(b) of CEQA allows certain projects to be exempted
from the CEQA process. The State may approve or carry out ministerial
projects, those projects that the public agency must approve after the
applicant shows compliance with certain legal requirements, without
undertaking CEQA review. Examples of ministerial projects include final
subdivision map approval and most building permits (Bass and Herson
1994). In addition, recent proposed revisions to CEQA guidelines, if
made final, may weaken protection for threatened, endangered, and other
sensitive species.
The California Surface and Mining Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975
(California Public Resources Code chapter 9 sec. 2710 et seq.) requires
preventing or minimizing adverse environmental effects and reclaiming
mined lands to a useable condition that is readily adaptable for
alternative land uses. Although SMARA requires reclamation for mining
activities, the standards for reclamation and the success of any
revegetation is judged on the approved end use of the land. Approved
examples of these end uses for mining activities within the Ione area
include water storage for irrigation, grazing, rangeland, seeding with
grasses for pasture, and intensive agriculture (Mining Reports 1976-
1993). SMARA does not require replacement of the same vegetation type,
species, or percentage of vegetation cover as the habitat that is lost.
No approved mining reclamation plans included measures to attempt
restoration of either Arctostaphylos myrtifolia or Eriogonum apricum or
the Ione chaparral plant community, although one plan indicated an
intention to allow A. myrtifolia, known to occur on the site, to re-
establish itself (Mining Reports 1976-1993). We received a description
of a reclamation project during the public comment period on the
proposed rule (Mike Kizer, Ione Minerals & Refractories, in litt.
1997). An area previously stripped of all soil, vegetation, and
overburden is contoured to a 3:1 slope. All vegetation growing on
another area where A. myrtifolia is growing is crushed with a
bulldozer. The crushed vegetation and soil is scraped and spread
directly on the newly established slope. The site is then seeded with a
mixture of non-native legumes and grasses and fertilized and limed.
Mulch is then applied for erosion control. Based on this description of
what is presumably a typical reclamation project, we maintain that land
reclamation under SMARA establishes only a goal of revegetation of the
site without regard to the original species composition and structure,
not restoration of the original plant community that was lost when the
area was mined. Even though such efforts may result in the
reestablishment of A. myrtifolia on reclaimed sites, they are
inadequate to meet the purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b),
to ``provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved.'' Moreover,
SMARA does not apply to many activities, including the prospecting or
extraction of minerals for commercial purposes, or the removal of
material that lies above or between natural mineral deposits in amounts
less than 764.6 cubic m (1,000 cubic yards) in any location of 0.4 ha
(1 ac) or less.
In addition, SMARA is also inadequate for protection of these
species because reclamation plans are required to be submitted only for
operations conducted after January 1, 1976. Surface mining operations
that were permitted or authorized prior to January 1, 1976, are not
required to submit reclamation plans as long as no substantial changes
are made in their operation. The lead agency is responsible for
determining what constitutes a substantial change in operation.
Although the city of Ione General Plan and the Environmental Impact
Report of the Banks annexation to the city of Ione includes the
protection of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum as a
goal, the City has no regulatory mechanism to stop land clearing and/or
preserve natural habitat (R. Johnsen, in litt. 1994). The County of
Amador has taken steps toward protecting rare plants that grow along
Ione area roadsides through the designation of surveyed sites as
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) has also designated a segment of State Route
88 near Ione as a Botanical Management Area (Hartwell 1997). Caltrans
manages this segment to encourage regrowth of native plants that grow
on the highway right-of-way (Hartwell 1997).
Two preserves support occurrences of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum. The Apricum Hill Ecological Reserve,
managed by the CDFG, is about 15.2 ha (37.5 ac). The Ione Manzanita
ACEC, managed by BLM, covers 35 ha (86 ac). Both preserves provide some
protection of three occurrences of A. myrtifolia and one occurrence of
E. apricum var. apricum; however, they are small sites and subject to
edge effects such as shading by taller shrubs or competition with
invasive vegetation (see factors A and E of this section for more
detail).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The effects on Arctostaphylos myrtifolia of changing the frequency
of occurrence of fire have not been well-studied. Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia lacks the ability to crown sprout and is killed outright by
fire. It must, therefore, reproduce by seed. Roof (1982) and Woodward
(in litt. 1994) reported abundant post-fire seed germination. Woodward
also reported successful reestablishment of the species on ground
scraped by tractors during a fire suppression operation. The response
of
[[Page 28410]]
A. myrtifolia to fire appears, however, to be irregular and
unpredictable (Wood and Parker 1988).
Wood reports fire suppression results in stand die-off without
regeneration (M. Wood, in litt. 1994). Scientists have observed mature
individuals in well-established, undisturbed natural stands die. The
species appears to have a low regenerative potential in closed stands
(Wood and Parker 1988). Individual plants are thought to live not much
longer than 50 years (Gankin and Major 1964). Individuals maintained in
cultivation for many years have died suddenly for no apparent reason
(S. Edwards, cited in Wood and Parker 1988).
Fire, therefore, appears to be necessary for the long-term
maintenance of the Ione chaparral community. Controlled burning may be
a viable means of ensuring adequate reproduction of Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia, or perhaps even controlling or preventing loss due to the
fungal pathogen (V.T. Parker, in litt. 1994; M. Wood, in litt. 1994).
Field observations and controlled experiments to date, however, suggest
exercising caution in the use of fire until the reasons for the
variability in the response of A. myrtifolia are better understood.
Progress toward better understanding of the response of A. myrtifolia
to fire was thwarted when long term study sites established to study
this response were graded and cleared by the landowner (V.T. Parker, in
litt. 1994; M. Wood, in litt. 1994).
Reestablishment on mined areas may be difficult for the Ione
chaparral plant community in general, and for Arctostaphylos myrtifolia
in particular, due to a lack of the required specialized substrate and
an absence of proven propagation methods (E. Bollinger, in litt. 1994).
Researchers have attempted a variety of germination and seed bank
experiments on A. myrtifolia without success (Wood and Parker 1988).
Others have also attempted to cultivate the species with little or no
success (R. Gankin, cited in Wood and Parker 1988). Although the plant
has a limited capacity to root from its lower branches, Roof (1982)
reported that he was unaware of even a single plant that had been grown
or cultivated from a rooted branch. The only report of successful
cultivation indicates that the plant requires high soil-acidity and
heavy supplements of soluble aluminum (Roof 1982).
Throughout its range, on habitat edges where better soil
development occurs, Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is being out-competed by
other native vegetation (M. Wood, pers. comm. 1994; R. Woodward, in
litt. 1994). Arctostaphylos viscida (white-leaf manzanita), a more
rapidly growing, taller manzanita, encroaches along the edge of stands
of A. myrtifolia. Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is eliminated when A.
viscida grows tall enough to shade it (M. Wood, pers. comm. 1994; R.
Woodward, in litt. 1994). This is not likely to be a significant threat
to the species, however, because most stands occur on substrates from
which taller shrubs are excluded.
As discussed in factor A, habitat fragmentation may alter the
physical environment. Plant species may disappear from chaparral
fragments that are from 10 to 100 ha (24.7 to 247 ac) in size due to
persistent disturbance and potentially due to change in fire frequency
(Soule et al. 1992). In addition, habitat fragmentation increases the
risks of extinction due to random environmental, demographic, or
genetic events (Soule et al. 1992). The two, small, isolated
populations of Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum, makes random
extinction more likely. Chance events, such as disease outbreaks,
reproductive failure, extended drought, landslides, or a combination of
several such events, could destroy part of a single population or
entire populations. A local catastrophe also could decrease a
population to so few individuals that the risk of extirpation due to
genetic and demographic problems inherent to small populations would
increase.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by these species in making this final determination. Eriogonum
apricum (inclusive of vars. apricum and prostratum) is verified from 11
occurrences on approximately 4.4 ha (11 ac) in Amador County,
California. The species is endangered by mining, clearing of vegetation
for agriculture and for fire protection, inadequate regulatory
mechanisms, habitat fragmentation, residential and commercial
development, ongoing erosion, and random events. Eriogonum apricum is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and the preferred action is, therefore, to list it as endangered.
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia is reported from 17 sites, and estimated to
occur in a total of about 100 stands covering about 404.7 ha (1,000 ac)
in Amador County, with a few occurrences in Calaveras County. It is
threatened by mining, disease, clearing of vegetation for agriculture
and for fire protection, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, habitat
fragmentation, increased residential development, and changes in fire
frequency. Although A. myrtifolia faces many of the same threats as E.
apricum, the significantly wider range and greater number of
populations and individuals of A. myrtifolia moderate the threats.
Thus, A. myrtifolia is not now in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range, as is E. apricum, but is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future. Therefore, the
preferred action is to list A. myrtifolia as threatened.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as: (i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time
it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management consideration
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation,'' as it is defined in section 3(3) of the Act, means
the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to
the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that designation of critical
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following
situations exist--(1) information sufficient to perform required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat. The regulations
(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) the
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
We find that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum, because of increased
degree of threat to each species and lack of benefit. The detriment to
the species outweighs any
[[Page 28411]]
benefit that such designation may provide. The reasons for not
designating critical habitat for these species is discussed below.
All three occurrences of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia on Federal lands
are managed by the BLM; one of these occurrences lies within the Ione
Manzanita ACEC. On Federal lands, modification of occupied habitat by
any action authorized by the BLM is unlikely to occur without
consultation under section 7 of the Act because BLM managers are well-
aware of the presence and locations of A. myrtifolia (BLM 1989; E.
Bollinger, in litt. 1994). Establishment of the ACEC indicates that the
BLM will give the protection of the rare plant community on this parcel
the highest priority in all management decisions (E. Bollinger, in
litt. 1994). The BLM prohibits grazing in the ACEC, and has implemented
erosion control measures on an off-road vehicle course previously used
by CDFFP. In addition, the BLM has functionally withdrawn the ACEC and
other habitats known to be occupied by the species from mineral entry
(E. Bollinger, in litt. 1994; Al Franklin, Botanist, BLM, Folsom
Resource Area, pers. comm. 1998) and has developed a management plan
for the ACEC (BLM 1989). The BLM has also authorized experimental
transplantation studies on the ACEC (Garland 1997). We believe,
therefore, that designation of critical habitat on Federal land would
confer no additional benefit to the species beyond that which is
already afforded by current management.
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia faces human-caused threats (see factors A
and E in ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section) and
occurs predominately on private lands. Vandalism of A. myrtifolia has
already occurred. A 43-hectare (106-acre) parcel of land previously
identified in a public document as occupied habitat for this species
was cleared in 1993, presumably to facilitate future development (R.
Johnsen, in litt. 1994). A second incident of vandalism occurred in
July 1997 shortly after the proposed listing rule was published in the
Federal Register (Garland 1997). In this second incident, unknown
vandals destroyed a scientific propagation study plot for A. myrtifolia
on lands managed by the BLM.
Eriogonum apricum is known from only 11 verified populations
covering an estimated total of 4.5 ha (11 ac) of habitat. Eriogonum
apricum occurs in the same general area and on similar substrates as
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia which has been vandalized as described above.
Because of its few populations, E. apricum is especially vulnerable to
impacts from loss of individuals or habitat damage due to vandalism.
The publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical
habitat in the Federal Register, as required for the designation of
critical habitat, however, would further increase the degree of threat
to these species from vandalism and could contribute to their decline
by making locational information readily available. Critical habitat
designation requires publication of proposed and final rules in the
Federal Register including both maps and specific descriptions of
critical habitat using reference points and lines that can be matched
to standard topographic maps of the area (see 16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(5)(A)(I) and (6)(A); 50 CFR 424.12(c), 424.16(a) and
424.18(a)). Once published in the Federal Register, proposed and final
rules are readily available over the Internet, where complete copies,
including maps, may be downloaded. The Act also requires us to publish
a notice of any critical habitat proposal in a newspaper of general
circulation and hold a public hearing upon request (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(5)(D) and (E)). While the listing process provides the public
with general information about the habitat of a species and where a
species might occur in general terms, critical habitat designation
makes more specific locational information readily available to any
would-be vandal.
We find, therefore, that the increased degree of threat to
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum from vandalism and
habitat destruction outweigh any benefits that might derive from the
designation of critical habitat.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires development of
recovery plans for all listed species. We discuss the protection
required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain
activities involving listed plants below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with us
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If we subsequently list a
species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with us.
Almost all of the occurrences for both species are on private land.
Three occurrences of Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and one occurrence of
Eriogonum apricum var. apricum exist entirely or partially on Federal
land managed by the BLM. Other potential Federal involvement includes
the construction and maintenance of roads and highways by the Federal
Highway Administration (two populations of E. apricum var. apricum
occur along rights-of-way owned by Caltrans).
Listing these two plant species would provide for development of a
recovery plan (or plans) for them. Such plan(s) would bring together
both State and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The
plan(s) would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
activities and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The
plan(s) would set recovery priorities and estimate costs of various
tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also would describe site-
specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and
survival of the two plants. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, we would be more likely to grant funds to affected States for
management actions promoting the protection and recovery of these
species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered or
threatened plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants and 17.71 for
threatened plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to
import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce, or remove and
[[Page 28412]]
reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction.
In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits
malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction,
and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such
plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including
state criminal trespass law. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the
provision of such protection to threatened species through regulation.
This protection may apply to Arctostaphylos myrtifolia in the future if
regulations are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens of
threatened plants are exempt from these prohibitions provided that
their containers are marked ``Of Cultivated Origin'' on the shipping
containers. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to our agents
and agents of State conservation agencies.
It is our policy (59 FR 34272) to identify to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range.
Less than five percent of the occurrences of the two species occur on
public (Federal) lands. Collection, damage, or destruction of these
species on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a
Federal endangered species permit may be issued to allow collection for
scientific or recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal lands
would constitute a violation of section 9 when conducted in knowing
violation of California State law or regulations or in violation of
State criminal trespass law.
Activities that are unlikely to violate section 9 include light to
moderate livestock grazing, clearing a defensible space for fire
protection around one's personal residence, and landscaping (including
irrigation) around one's personal residence. Direct questions regarding
whether specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 to
the Field Supervisor of the Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 (for endangered plants) and 17.72 (for
threatened plants) also provide for the issuance of permits to carry
out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened
plants under certain circumstances. Such permits are available for
scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or survival or the
species. For threatened plants, permits also are available for
botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or special
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated
that few trade permits would ever be sought or issued for
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and Eriogonum apricum, because these species
are not common in cultivation or in the wild. You can obtain copies of
the regulations regarding listed species and inquire about prohibitions
and permits by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).
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 Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget
clearance number 1018-0094. 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 control number. For additional
information concerning permit and associated requirements for
endangered and threatened plants, see 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.72.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author. The primary authors of this final rule are Kirsten Tarp and
Jason Davis, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulations Promulgation
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend 50 CFR part 17 as
set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.12(h) add the following to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under ``FLOWERING PLANTS:''
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic Range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common Name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Arctostaphylos myrtifolia........ Ione manzanita...... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ericaceae--Heath... T 661 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Eriogonum apricum................ Ione buckwheat U.S.A. (CA)........ Polygonaceae--Buckw E 661 NA NA
(=Irish Hill heat.
buckwheat).
[[Page 28413]]
(inclusive of vars. apricum and
prostratum).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: April 16, 1999.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-13250 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
