Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of
Proposed Listing of Two Plants as Endangered, and Four Plants as
Threatened From the Foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in
California
[Federal Register: September 14, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49065-49075]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14se98-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC99
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of
Proposed Listing of Two Plants as Endangered, and Four Plants as
Threatened From the Foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in
California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the
proposal to list Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine) and
Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) as endangered species, and
Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria californica
(carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily), and
Navarretia setiloba (Piute Mountains navarretia) as threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service
finds that available information does not support the listing of these
species as endangered or threatened. While current and future
urbanization, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, agricultural land
conversion, potential overgrazing, and/or trampling variously threaten
some populations of these six taxa, there is not substantive evidence
that these threats are sufficiently widespread to pose a significant
threat. Some of these plants are vulnerable to extirpation from random
events due to their small population size, small numbers of
populations, and/or small range but this vulnerability, in and of
itself, is not sufficient justification to warrant their listing.
Therefore, the Service finds that the six plant species are not
threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges in the foreseeable future and do not meet the definition
of threatened or endangered species.
DATES: This withdrawal is made on September 14, 1998.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Elam, Kenneth Fuller, or Dwight
Harvey at the above address or by telephone (916) 979-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 4, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 50540) a proposal to list as
endangered or threatened 10 plant species from the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. Included among these 10 taxa
were the six subject taxa of this notice, Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide
Hill onion), Carpenteria californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata
(Greenhorn adobe lily), Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa
lupine), Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower), and Navarretia
setiloba (Piute Mountains navarretia). The remaining four taxa,
Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea), Calyptridium pulchellum
(Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia springvillensis (Springville clarkia),
and Verbena californica (Red Hills vervain), are addressed separately
in a final rule published concurrently with this notice.
Allium tuolumnense was first recognized as distinct by Marion
Ownbey (Munz and Keck 1959), who referred to it as Allium sanbornii
var. tuolumnense, although the first valid published description of the
plant was by Hamilton P. Traub (1972). Stella Dension and Dale McNeal
(1989) revised the A. sanbornii qcomplex and elevated the variety to a
species based upon the position of stamens and styles and the length
and shape of perianth segments (sepals and petals).
Allium tuolumnense is an erect, herbaceous perennial of the lily
family (Liliaceae) that grows from underground bulbs. This species has
fleshy, green entire leaves that reach a height of 25 to 50 centimeters
(cm) (10 to 20 inches (in)). The loose, 20 to 60 flowered, white- or
pink-flushed inflorescence appears in late March to early May. Allium
tuolumnense differs from A. sanbornii and A. jepsonii in its entire,
spreading perianth segments, fringed ovarian bumps (processes), and
early blooming period that does not overlap with any other Allium
species within its range. Although this plant can reproduce from seed,
A. tuolumnense tends to reproduce asexually from its underground bulb,
forming small colonies of usually fewer than 100 plants per colony
(BioSystems Analysis 1984). Allium tuolumnense is a highly restricted
endemic that grows only on serpentine soils in the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains in southwestern Tuolumne County between 400 and
600 meters (m) (1,310 to 1,970 feet (ft)) in elevation. Allium
tuolumnense is known from four localities-- Table Mountain, Quartz
Mountain, the Red Hills, and the Moccasin area. The entire range of the
species comprises a 342 square kilometer (sq km) (132 square mile (sq
mi)) area. Occupied habitat within the range of the species is
estimated to be approximately 388 hectares (ha) (960 acres (ac))
(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1997). Approximately 25
percent of A. tuolumnense occupied habitat is found on private lands
and 75 percent on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). At the time of the proposed rule, populations of A. tuolumnense
were thought to be variously threatened by placer mining, urbanization,
and potentially by overgrazing.
John C. Fremont collected Carpenteria californica from an area in
the Kings River watershed on his third expedition to California in
1846. John Torrey (1852) first described C. californica from specimens
sent to him by John Fremont. The species is the only member of the
genus Carpenteria, one of California's many endemic genera that are
relicts without close relatives. The genus probably had a wider range
in early Tertiary time (Barbour and Major 1988). An estimated one-third
of the total distribution of species has been lost to habitat loss and/
or alteration since the species was discovered in the 1840's
[[Page 49066]]
(California Department Fish and Game (CDFG) 1989). Although land and
road development appear to have been major causes of past habitat
losses and fragmentation, pending development proposals are
insufficient to pose a substantial threat of further losses and
degradation of occupied habitat.
Carpenteria californica belongs to the mock orange family
(Philadelphaceae). The species is an erect to spreading evergreen
shrub, growing to 1 to 2 m (3 to 6.5 ft) in height. Some individuals
grow to 4 m (13 ft) tall. Plants have glossy green, opposing leaves,
and smooth pale bark that peels in large sheets in the late summer.
Terminal, white, showy flowers appear in May or June and last through
July at higher elevations. Carpenteria californica requires fire for
seed germination and reduction of competition, and rest from grazing
for three years after germination to facilitate longterm survival.
Carpenteria californica is found along drainages and mesic areas on
mostly granitic soils from 460 to 1,220 m (1,500 to 4,000 ft) within
the chaparral and woodland communities of the western foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains primarily in eastern Fresno County. A newly
discovered occurrence of about 40 individuals was found in 1997 in
Madera County just to the north of Fresno County (Joanna Clines et al.,
United States Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, in litt. 1997).
At the time of the proposed rule, Carpenteria californica was known
from six occurrences distributed over a 583 sq km (225 sq mi) area in
Fresno County. One of these occurrences is on private land, four are on
lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Sierra National Forest,
and one is on both private and Forest Service lands. The Madera County
population is on the Sierra National Forest (J. Clines et al., in litt.
1997). The total number of individual plants among these seven
occurrences is estimated to be 8,000 (J. Clines, in litt. 1997), and
the estimated habitat area is approximately 7,117 ha (17,587 ac) (CNDDB
1997). Approximately 30 percent of C. californica individuals occur on
private lands, and most of the remaining 70 percent occur on Federal
lands (James Boynton, Sierra National Forest, in litt. 1993). The
Sierra National Forest has established a 101-ha (250-ac) Carpenteria
Botanical Reserve to protect one part of an occurrence of this species.
Individual plants also occur within the Sierra National Forest's
Backbone Natural Research Area. A portion of one occurrence of C.
californica is protected on a 121-ha (300-ac) private preserve owned by
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). At the time of the proposed rule, C.
californica was thought to be variously threatened by urbanization,
fire management, overgrazing and/or trampling by cattle, and inadequate
State regulatory mechanisms, and to be potentially threatened by
illegal dumping, highway construction, maintenance of road rights-of-
way activities, and competition from native brush species.
Alice Eastwood (1931) described Fritillaria striata from specimens
collected by Roy Weston on the Rattlesnake Grade in the Greenhorn
Mountains of Kern County. Fritillaria is a genus of slender,
herbaceous, bulb-forming perennials in the lily family (Liliaceae). An
unbranched stem grows 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) above the surface of the
ground from an underground bulb. The underground, spherical bulb is
found 20 to 35 cm (8 to 13 in) deep underground and is 15 to 20
millimeters (mm) (0.6 to 0.8 in) in diameter. The predominantly basal,
alternate to opposite leaves are oblong to lance-shaped, 1 to 2 cm (0.4
to 0.8 in) wide and 6 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long. The upper leaves are
narrower and undulate. One to four fragrant, bell-shaped flowers appear
from February through April. Fritillaria striata differs from the
related F. pluriflora (adobe lily), which occurs in the northern
Sacramento Valley foothills, in the shape, size, and coloring of the
flowers, the conspicuous nectaries, and the converging stigmas
(Stebbins 1989, Eastwood 1931).
Fritillaria striata is found on heavy, usually red, clay soils in
the annual grasslands and in the blue oak (Quercus dougaslii) woodlands
of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley and western Sierra Nevada
foothills and the northern foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains. At the
time the proposed rule was published, 14 occurrences of F. striata were
known in Kern County, and 3 occurrences were known from Tulare County
(CNDDB 1997). During the fourth comment period for the proposed rule,
six additional occurrences of F. striata in Kern County were reported
(Dennis Mullins, Tejon Ranch, in litt. 1997). Occurrences of F. striata
are scattered discontinuously over a 7,250 sq km (2,800 sq mi) area;
however, the estimated occupied area of the occurrences is less than
202 ha (500 ac) (CNDDB 1997). The 23 occurrences range in elevation
from 300 to 1,430 m (1,000 to 4,800 ft). All occurrences occur on
private land. Although no occurrences are protected in public
ownership, F. striata appear to be actively managed for the protection
of the plants at two locations (CNDDB 1997). At the time of the
proposed rule, F. striata was thought to be variously threatened by
urbanization, agricultural land conversion, road widening, emergency
road maintenance, inadequate State regulatory mechanisms, livestock
use, competition from non-native grasses, and OHV use.
Joseph Congdon (1904) described Lupinus deflexus from specimens
that he collected near Mariposa Creek in Mariposa County in 1903.
Willis Jepson (1936) revised the treatment of this species and reduced
the plant to varietal status, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus. Lupinus
citrinus var. deflexus is an erect, diffusely-branched annual herb
belonging to the pea family (Fabaceae). The 3 to 5 decimeter (dm) (12
to 20 in) high plants are short, hairy to hairless, and have palmately
compound leaves that are 15 to 25 mm (0.5 to 1.0 in) long. The six to
nine leaflets are about one-third as wide as they are long and are
linear or spatulate in shape with rounded or obtuse tips. White flowers
that may have pink or lavender tips appear from April through May.
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus grows on decomposed granitic sands
on ridgetops and hillsides in openings in the foothill woodlands from
475 to 580 m (1,400 to 1,900 ft) in elevation. The six occurrences of
this plant occur on private lands in Mariposa County over a 40 sq km
(15 sq mi) area. Two of the six occurrences grow with Calyptridium
pulchellum, a species the Service is listing as threatened in the final
rule being published concurrently with this withdrawal. At the time of
the proposed rule, L. c. var. deflexus was thought to be threatened by
urbanization, inadequate State regulatory mechanisms, and potentially
by overgrazing.
Lawrence Heckard and Rimo Bacigalupi (1986) first described Mimulus
shevockii from specimens collected by James Shevock around the Kelso
Creek area near the east base of the Piute Mountains in Kern County.
Mimulus shevockii is an erect, desert annual in the snapdragon family
(Scrophulariaceae). This plant grows to 1 dm (4 in) in height and has
opposite, sessile, somewhat fleshy leaves along reddish stems.
Asymmetric flowers appear from late March to May. The corolla is two-
lipped. The upper flower lip has two short, entire, lateral maroon-
purple lobes. The lower flower lip is similar but larger in size and
has an additional large, partially divided yellow lobe with red
mottling. Mimulus androsaceus (rockjasmine monkeyflower) and M.
fremontii (Fremont's monkeyflower) grow with M. shevockii and have some
similar vegetative features but differ in flower
[[Page 49067]]
color. Mimulus androsaceus has a red-purple flower and M. fremontii has
a rose-purple flower.
Mimulus shevockii occurs predominately in loamy, coarse sands on
alluvial fans and deposits of granitic origin within the Joshua tree
(Yucca brevifolia) or California juniper (Juniperus californica) xeric
woodlands in Kern County. Mimulus shevockii is found within an
elevational range of 975 to 1,250 m (3,200 to 4,100 ft). Seven of the
eight known occurrences of M. shevockii are within a 31 sq km (12 sq
mi) area, with the remaining occurrence 14 km (9 mi) to the northwest.
Four occurrences of M. shevockii are found on BLM land, one is on
private land, and three occur partially on BLM land and partially on
private land (CNDDB 1997). Approximately 400 occupied ha (990 ac) of M.
shevockii occur on BLM land, and approximately 408 occupied ha (1,000
ac) occur on private land (Susan Carter, BLM, pers. comm. 1997a). Since
the proposed rule was published, three new occurrences have been found
(S. Carter, in litt. 1995a, 1995b; CNDDB 1997), and approximately 645
ha (1,600 ac) of potential, unsurveyed habitat on BLM land have been
identified (S. Carter, in litt. 1996). At the time of the proposed
rule, M. shevockii was thought to be threatened by urbanization, OHV
use, and agricultural land conversion.
Frederick Coville (1893) described Navarretia setiloba from plants
that he collected from a ridge between Kernville and Havilah in Kern
County. Navarretia setiloba is an erect annual plant in the phlox
family (Polemoniaceae). The species grows 8 to 20 cm (3 to 8 in) tall
and has a few branches. The linear, pinnately-lobed leaves have rigid,
spinose lobes. The terminal lobe is broadly lanceolate and often
purplish. The inflorescence is about 10 mm (0.4 in) long, has 20 to 30
purple flowers, and appears from April through June. The flowers are
subtended by spiny bracts that are constricted in the middle.
Navarretia setiloba is distinguished from closely related species
(sympatric congeners) in the same locations by the broad terminal lobe
on each leaf and by its purple flowers.
Navarretia setiloba grows on heavy, often red-colored, clay soils
within blue oak (Quercus douglasii), foothill pine (Pinus sabbiniana),
or juniper (Juniperus californica) woodlands between 300 and 960 m
(1,000 to 3,200 ft). Six small occurrences of N. setiloba are known
from Kern County and are scattered over a 4,000 sq km (1,560 sq mi)
area. The known occupied habitat of N. setiloba is less than 6.5 ha (16
ac) (CNDDB 1997). One occurrence is found on land administered by the
BLM, and five occurrences are found on private lands (CNDDB 1997). At
the time of the proposed rule, N. setiloba was thought to be threatened
by urbanization and OHV use.
Finding and Withdrawal
The Service finds that the various threats to all or most of the
populations within the ranges of Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria
californica, Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus,
Mimulus shevockii, and Navarretia setiloba are insufficient to warrant
listing these species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the October 4, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 50540) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to development of a final
rule. Appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, County and City
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties
were contacted and requested to provide comments. Newspaper notices
inviting public comment were published in the Bakersfield Californian
and Porterville Recorder on October 10, 1994, and the Fresno Bee and
Tuolumne Union Democrat on October 25, 1994. The comment period closed
on December 5, 1994.
As a result of receiving seven requests for one or more public
hearings, the Service reopened and extended the comment period until
February 13, 1995 (59 FR 67268). The Service held informational
meetings with interested parties about the proposed rule in Fresno on
January 25, 1995, in Visalia on January 26, 1995, and in Bakersfield on
January 27, 1995. On January 31, 1995, the Service conducted a public
hearing in Bakersfield. The Service received three requests to postpone
or delay the hearing and three additional requests to extend the
comment period beyond February 13, 1995. Responding to these requests,
the Service extended the comment period until June 4, 1995 (60 FR
8342). The Service reopened the comment period on February 4, 1997 (62
FR 5199), and again on June 30, 1997 (62 FR 35116), to update and
clarify information received during the two prior comment periods.
The Service received 314 comments (i.e., letters, phone calls,
facsimiles, and oral testimony) from 96 individuals or agency or group
representatives concerning the proposed rule to list the six species
which are now part of the withdrawal notice. Twenty-six people provided
60 comments supporting the proposed listing of the species in this
withdrawal notice, 28 people opposed the proposed listing and provided
162 comments, and 42 people provided 92 informational comments. Several
commenters provided additional information that, along with other
clarifications, has been incorporated into the ``Background'' or
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' sections of this
withdrawal. Opposing and technical comments have been organized into
eight specific issues. These issues and the Service's response to each,
are summarized below.
Issue 1--Sufficiency and Admissibility of Data
Comment: Several commenters stated that data used in the proposed
rule to list these six plants in this withdrawal notice were either
incomplete, inaccurate, insufficient, erroneous, unsubstantiated,
inadequate, unscientific, subjective, unsupported, or based only on
biased opinions in favor of listing the species, or required additional
research.
Service Response: Information used by the Service in proposing to
list and withdraw the species was gathered from a variety of sources,
including Federal and State agencies, local governments, and private
individuals, including species experts and scientists. Information
received during public comment periods, including peer reviewer
comments and comments made at public hearings, provide the foundation
for determining the withdrawal of the six taxa in this notice. All
information received was carefully evaluated in accordance with the
interagency policy on information standards under the Act, published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271). Criteria for what information may be
considered are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section of this rule.
Comment: Several commenters stated that data were or may have been
collected by trespass and questioned the legality and admissibility of
the data under those circumstances.
Service Response: Among the information sources used by the Service
is information from Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a part of the
Natural Heritage Program of the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG). The data are submitted to CNDDB on a standardized form and
carefully reviewed by the staff at CNDDB. However, the form does not
ask if written or verbal permission was requested to access any lands,
including private lands. Many of the older observations may predate the
more
[[Page 49068]]
recent heightened sensitivity of landowners to individuals searching
for rare plants on private lands. Neither the Service nor the CDFG
condone trespassing.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the information was
accurate, and that the Service would not have proposed these species if
the data did not support the proposed listing.
Service Response: The Service gathered the best available
information in order to make an accurate determination related to these
plant species. The Service received additional information on the
status, distribution, and threats to the six taxa in this withdrawal
notice over the course of four comment periods; October 10, 1994 to
December 5, 1994, December 29, 1994 to June 4, 1995, February 4, 1997
to March 6, 1997, and June 30, 1997 to August 30, 1997. Based upon all
the comments received, the Service determined that the six taxa in this
notice did not meet the definitions of either endangered or threatened
as stated in the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424 subpart
A).
Issue 2--Species are or are not Threatened or Threats are not
Substantiated
Comment: Several commenters stated that some of the species were
more common than indicated in the proposed rule, or some, if not all,
of the species were not threatened by one or more factors across the
range of the species.
Service Response: The Service concurs with the comment. Additional
information regarding the status of the six taxa in this notice is
discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
of this withdrawal. The Service has determined that none of these six
plant taxa meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species
under the Act. A list of all references used to formulate this
withdrawal notice is available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office upon written request (see ADDRESSES section).
Issue 3--Fire Management
Comment: The U.S. Forest Service can use controlled fires to
improve Carpenteria californica habitat. California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) vegetation management practices
such as fire suppression and controlled burns could and should be used
to benefit C. californica on private lands.
Service Response: The Service agrees that vegetation management
through controlled burning may have some benefits for selected plant
species. To illustrate, controlled burning can promote the needed
sexual reproduction of Carpenteria californica by reducing the
competition of native brush species and allowing for seeds of C.
californica to germinate and grow. The U.S. Forest Service started to
construct firebreaks on lands administered by the Sierra National
Forest in 1997 as part of a five year program of controlled burning to
promote the sexual reproduction of C. californica (J. Clines, in litt.
1997) (discussed in detail in Factor E, below). However, in regards to
private lands, please see the next comment and response.
Comment: Firebreaks are used as one means to control wildfires and
can minimize severe impacts of fire to vegetation, and should
facilitate the burning of native brush and grasses, and thus promote
the propagation of Carpenteria californica. The U.S. Forest Service and
CDFFP have a new fire suppression facility that will reduce response
time for initial attacks on wildfires and thus reduce the effects of
wildfires, and the urban interface issue with C. californica. The CDFFP
promotes the use of prescribed burns to control native and non-native
vegetation without which C. californica may decline.
Service Response: The Service agrees that controlled burning on
private lands may promote the longterm reproduction of some selected
plant species. However, the CDFFP has not conducted any controlled or
prescribed burns in C. californica habitat to facilitate the needed
seed germination and seedling establishment of C. californica on
private lands in the last five years. Furthermore, controlled burning
alone is insufficient to insure that seedlings of C. californica will
survive any subsequent cattle trampling or grazing. Please see Factor E
of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section for further
discussion.
Issue 4--Cultivation and Horticulture
Comment: Several commenters stated that Carpenteria californica
should not be listed because it can be commercially produced in
California from nursery (non-wild) stock. Populations of C. californica
are expanding throughout its range and in England from the nursery
trade. Successful cultivation guarantees that the plant is not
threatened or endangered under intent of the ESA.
Service Response: One of the purposes of the Act is to provide a
means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened
species depend may be conserved. Successful cultivation of a species
such as Carpenteria californica for the nursery trade does not meet the
purposes of the Act. Nursery cultivation and sales of C. californica do
not constitute a native population or range expansion or extension of a
wild ecosystem nor do those activities by themselves ensure the
conservation or protection of a wild ecosystem. Although reintroduction
into potential suitable habitat may be an important recovery tool, such
reintroduction of C. californica does not necessarily ensure the long-
term survival of the species.
Issue 5--Range and Distribution
Comment: The Service received comments regarding the incomplete
data addressing the range and distribution of Allium tuolumnense,
Fritillaria striata, and Mimulus shevockii.
Service Response: Some commenters provided no additional specific
information regarding the range and distribution of Allium tuolumnense,
Fritillaria striata, and Mimulus shevockii that could be used in this
withdrawal notice. Other commenters provided specific information
regarding Fritillaria striata and Mimulus shevockii that was used in
the development of this withdrawal notice. Please see the
``Background'' and ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''
sections for further discussion.
Issue 6--Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Comment: Several commenters stated that the existing regulatory
measures available through State, Federal and local laws, rules and
regulations provide adequate protection for the six species in this
notice. Other commenters stated that the existing regulatory mechanisms
were not sufficient to protect the species included in this notice of
withdrawal, and therefore the listing should go forward to provide the
protection necessary for the continued existence of these species.
Service Response: Because the Service has not found evidence of
sufficient threats to any of these species to warrant listing, the
question as to whether existing regulatory measures are adequate to
protect them is irrelevant. See the discussion under Factor D of the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section for further
detail.
Issue 7--Grazing
Comment: One commenter stated that Fritillaria striata is not
adversely impacted by cattle grazing and trampling because no
scientifically documented studies exist to demonstrate the speculation
of adverse impacts, nor is it threatened at the five sites which are
noted in the proposed
[[Page 49069]]
rule to have heavy grazing or overgrazing as a threat because the
visits were done by people who had no range management knowledge or
training and were done at the wrong times of year, nor is it threatened
by competition from non-native plants. The same commenter stated F.
striata has no habitat at the Element Occurrence 2, and, therefore, has
not been extirpated due to heavy grazing as was stated in the proposed
rule.
Service Response: The Service received no data to support the
contention that grazing did not have adverse impacts to any occurrences
of Fritillaria striata as stated in the proposed rule. Virtually all
the information regarding adverse impacts to occurrences of F. striata
that the Service received was anecdotal information. No special
training in range management or other science is needed to observe that
individual plants of F. striata are consumed and flowers are trampled
across a small area that contains a few hundred individual plants. The
timing of observations of cattle consuming and trampling flowers has
varied. The Service also received plant count data for a single year on
10 previously unknown sites of F. striata which have been historically
grazed at various seasons of use. Although other extirpations have
occurred to populations of F. striata, reports to the CDFG's Natural
Heritage Program indicate that the Natural Diversity Data Base Element
Occurrence Number 2 had experienced heavy grazing in 1990, but is still
extant (CNDDB 1997). Anecdotal observations of adverse or neutral
impacts to occurrences F. striata are part of the public record. Please
see Factor C in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''
section for further discussion of grazing as it relates to these
species.
Comment: One commenter stated that cattle do not eat Carpenteria
californica flowers. Another commenter stated that grazing reduces the
competition to C. californica from grasses and other species. Another
commenter stated that Carpenteria californica is only grazed and
trampled for about three years after a burn. Lastly, one commenter
stated that grazing does not affect the C. californica occurrence
located next to Highway 168.
Service Response: In the proposed rule, the Service stated that
overgrazing was adversely affecting portions of two populations of
Carpenteria californica in Fresno County. The Service has not ever
stated that cattle eat the flowers of C. californica or that cattle
were adversely affecting that portion of a population of C. californica
at California State Highway 168. As a mature plant, Carpenteria
californica is not readily grazed by livestock. However, in a three-
year study of the effects of cattle grazing and trampling, over 90
percent of 400 marked seedlings were killed by grazing and trampling
(Clines 1994).
Comment: One commenter stated that grazing reduces competition to
Carpenteria californica from grasses and other species. Another
commenter stated that competition from native brush species may
adversely affect C. californica.
Service Response: Neither commenter provided the Service with any
information nor data to support their respective contentions.
Scientific literature on the effects of grazing or competition from
native brush species to C. californica is lacking. The Service is not
aware of any data that supports or refutes that competition from other
plant species affects C. californica, or that livestock grazing reduces
competition between other species and C. californica. For more
discussion on the effects of livestock grazing, please see Factor C in
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section.
Comment: Navarretia setiloba only occurs on one section of public
lands in the Piute Mountains and grazing is not likely to adversely
affect this species.
Service Response: With the exception of the two occurrences of
Navarretia setiloba that occur within an urban setting (e.g., inside an
existing mobile home park in one case), all known occurrences of N.
setiloba, including the one on public lands in the Piute Mountains, are
found on open rangelands that are likely grazed by livestock. At the
time of the proposed rule, the Service did not state that livestock
grazing was adversely affecting any of the populations of N. setiloba
and is not aware currently that any one of the occurrences is adversely
affected by livestock grazing.
Comment: Some occurrences of Mimulus shevockii receive some grazing
but it does not significantly impact them.
Service Response: At the time of the proposed rule, the Service did
not state that livestock grazing adversely affected or threatened any
of the known populations of Mimulus shevockii.
Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing and/or trampling is
good for the six species in this withdrawal notice by promoting plant
vigor, or creates a better seedbed. One commenter stated that the
Service holds the position that all grazing is overgrazing. One
commenter stated that other environmental factors (e.g., rainfall) are
more of an issue for these species than grazing.
Service Response: The Service is unable to support the general
position that grazing is either beneficial or detrimental for the six
species in this withdrawal notice. Many factors involved in livestock
management and grazing practices, such as season of use, intensity,
duration, and stocking levels, as well as varying climatic conditions
may contribute to beneficial, neutral, or negative impacts to
individual plant species and the ecosystem these species inhabit. Life
and growth stages of individual plant species may also enter into
accounting of any effects from livestock grazing and are often coupled
with complex interactions of competition with other plant species and
other indirect effects. This lack of available scientific literature,
along with site specific observations and local extirpations of some
taxa, fails to support a position that grazing is always beneficial to
the six taxa in this withdrawal notice. The Service does not maintain,
however, that all grazing is overgrazing or that all populations are
threatened by overgrazing, but rather that grazing at some locations
has been observed to have adverse impacts on Carpenteria californica
and Fritillaria striata.
Virtually all the information that the Service collected regarding
adverse, beneficial, and neutral livestock grazing effects on the six
taxa is anecdotal. However, repeated observations over time coupled
with knowledge of historical land uses suggests some levels of grazing
may adversely affect Carpenteria californica, Fritillaria striata, and
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus. However, information that was provided
for some of locations of some of the taxa in this withdrawal notice
indicates that some levels of livestock grazing may be a compatible
land use with Allium tuolumnense, Mimulus shevockii, and Navarretia
setiloba. The effects of herbivory by any animal, including livestock,
is addressed under Factor C, ``Disease and Predation'' section of this
withdrawal notice.
Comment: Several commenters stated that threats associated with
livestock grazing were either false, or purely speculative, or lacked
any scientific credence.
Service Response: In order to make a final determination whether to
list 10 plant species, the Service evaluated site specific observations
of known plant occurrences and reviewed an extensive body of literature
on the impacts of non-native mammals to plant species. The Service also
reviewed some data regarding plant counts of Fritillaria
[[Page 49070]]
striata at 13 sites, 10 of which were unknown before the proposed
listing. Please refer to Factor C in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section of this rule for further discussion of grazing.
Issue 8--Alternative Status
Comment: Several commenters requested that the species considered
in this notice should either not be listed at this time, be listed, be
listed with an alternate status, or retain current status indefinitely.
Service Response: Substantive information provided by commenters in
support of arguments for alternative listing status, including delay or
withdrawal, has been incorporated into the final rule and this
withdrawal notice. Please refer to the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section for further discussion.
Peer Review
In accordance with the interagency policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), the Service solicited the expert opinions of seven
independent and appropriate specialists regarding pertinent scientific
or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population
status, and biological and ecological information of the 10 proposed
plants. Five of the seven requested reviewers provided comments. It is
important to note that the peer reviewers were not aware that many of
the threats to these six taxa had been reduced or removed since the
proposal in 1994 and that additional occurrences (populations and
additional plants had been located. Not all reviewers commented on all
of the taxa that were proposed for listing. One reviewer supported the
listing of the species addressed in this withdrawal, noted that each
species is taxonomically distinct, and commented that the low numbers
of individuals in populations make them especially susceptible to
genetically based and detrimental phenomena. These phenomena include
inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variability. The reviewer
characterized population sizes of Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus and
Mimulus shevockii as ``perilously low'' and the populations of Allium
tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, Fritillaria striata, and
Navarretia setiloba as approaching that condition. A second reviewer
also supported the listing of the species addressed in this withdrawal
and commented specifically on C. californica, F. striata, L. c. var.
deflexus, M. shevockii, and N. setiloba. The reviewer noted that the
absence of sexual reproduction in C. californica and F. striata
augments the argument that the species are endangered. Further, the
reviewer noted because we do not understand why the species fail to
reproduce sexually or how to remedy it, the long-term prospects for
these species are ``exceedingly dubious.'' The same reviewer also
commented that further reductions in populations of L. c. var.
deflexus, M. shevockii, and N. setiloba may place them in danger of
extinction by random natural events. A third reviewer addressed C.
californica, F. striata, and L. c. var. deflexus. The reviewer noted
that the primary threat to C. californica from grazing and trampling is
immediately following a fire, that fire suppression is a potential
threat to C. californica, that alteration of fire frequency may effect
the long-term viability of F. striata populations, and that the limited
number of populations and known distribution of L. c. var. deflexus
suggest that protection is needed. A fourth reviewer provided
information on the taxonomic distinctiveness, ecology, and non-native
competitors of N. setiloba. The fourth reviewer emphasized the
importance of conserving the species. The fifth reviewer provided no
specific comments but supported the listing of the six taxa addressed
in this withdrawal.
The Service has reviewed all the comments received during the four
comment periods. Only comments specific to the six taxa that are the
subject of this notice are addressed herein. General comments received
on all ten taxa and specific comments that were received pertaining to
the four taxa that the Service is listing as threatened Brodiaea
pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea), Calyptridium pulchellum (Mariposa
pussypaws), Clarkia springvillensis (Springville clarkia), and Verbena
californica (Red Hills vervain) are addressed in a separate Federal
Register final rule published concurrently with this withdrawal.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The Service must consider five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act when determining whether to list a species. These factors,
and their application to the Service's decision to withdraw the
proposal to list Allium tuolumnense (Traub) Denison and McNeal (Rawhide
Hill onion), Carpenteria californica Torr. (carpenteria), Fritillaria
striata Eastw. (Greenhorn adobe lily), Lupinus citrinus Kell. var.
deflexus (Congd.) Jeps. (Mariposa lupine), Mimulus shevockii Heckard
and Bacig. (Kelso Creek monkeyflower), and Navarretia setiloba Cov.
(Piute Mountains navarretia) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
One occurrence of Allium tuolumnense is threatened by a subdivision
at the Rawhide Hill locality. This occurrence is the type locality that
once covered several hundred hectares but has now been reduced to 14 ha
(35 ac) as a result of land clearing activities to build houses (CNDDB
1997). Another occurrence of A. tuolumnense is threatened by
development of a subdivision near Chinese Camp at the Jamestown
locality (Brad Michalk and Robin Wood, Tuolumne County Planning
Department, pers. comm. 1997; CNDDB 1997). Land clearing activities for
the subdivision near the Chinese Camp involved the construction of
roads, fences, and house locations, which reduced colonies numbering
from 10,000 plants to just a few individual plants (Pat Stone,
California Native Plant Society, in litt. 1997; Rich Hunter, Central
Sierra Environmental Resources Center, pers. comm. 1997). An additional
occurrence of A. tuolumnense occurs in the open spaces of a recently
approved subdivision; however, the occurrence is not directly
threatened by the construction of houses (Robert Preston, LSA
Consultants, Inc., in litt. 1994). Urbanization has destroyed one
occurrence of A. tuolumnense and firebreak construction and road
construction have destroyed another portion of another occurrence
(Blaine Rogers, botanist, in litt. 1983, 1990; CNDDB 1997). An
estimated 75 percent of the occupied habitat of A. tuolumnense,
however, occurs on lands administered by the BLM and is not threatened
by urbanization. Another occurrence of A. tuolumnense on land owned by
the Tuolumne County Irrigation District has been irrigated through the
spring, summer, and fall with reclaimed wastewater from Quartz in 1996
and 1997 (P. Stone, pers comm. 1997). Effects of irrigation to this
occurrence are unknown. Four occurrences that were reported as being
threatened by commercial placer gold mining at the time of the proposed
rule are no longer threatened as the mining company has gone out of
business (R. Wood, pers comm. 1997).
Threats to two occurrences of Carpenteria californica by
development that were cited at the time of the proposed rule have not
been substantiated by construction of any specific proposed
subdivisions or specific development proposals
[[Page 49071]]
(CNDDB 1997). Future subdivisions still could threaten some of the
habitat of the estimated 30 percent of the plants that occur on private
lands. However, urbanization does not threaten the remaining 70 percent
of the range of C. californica that occurs on lands managed by the
Sierra National Forest. The construction of a new University of
California campus that could have potentially threatened one occurrence
of C. californica in western Fresno County is no longer a threat
because a Merced County site was selected for the new campus location.
Although illegal dumping has been reported to occur at two occurrences
of C. californica on the Sierra National Forest, no further impacts to
these occurrences have been reported since 1987 (CNDDB 1997). The
Service considers illegal dumping to be a minor, localized threat of
little significance to the overall status of the species. The continued
grading of access roads underneath powerlines and around power towers
continues to pose a potential threat to part of one occurrence of C.
californica on the Sierra National Forest. The Service also considers
this to be a minor threat. The small-scale logging impacts to C.
californica on the Sierra National Forest reported in the proposed rule
have not occurred and are not anticipated to occur at a significant
enough level to warrant continued consideration as a threat at this
time. The proposed realignment and expansion of a portion of California
State Highway 168 into a four-lane freeway that was reported to
potentially threaten portions of two occurrences of C. californica in
the proposed rule will most likely not be constructed within the next
20 years (Dana York, California Department of Transportation, pers.
comm. 1997), and, therefore, is not currently a threat to the species.
Prior to the publication of the proposed rule, three occurrences of
Fritillaria striata in Tulare County and one occurrence in Kern County
had been extirpated as a result of urbanization and agricultural land
conversion (CDFG 1991; CNDDB 1997). Agricultural land conversion
threatens two extant occurrences of F. striata in Tulare County (CNDDB
1997). A firebreak bisects part of one occurrence of F. striata in Kern
County (CNDDB 1997). Road maintenance threatens another occurrence of
F. striata in Kern County (CNDDB 1997). No specific threats have been
identified to the remaining 20 or more sites of F. striata. Moreover,
the Service received two reports regarding a total of at least ten and
as many as sixteen previously unknown populations of F. striata (Ralph
L. Phillips, University of California Cooperative Extension, in litt.
1997; Mark Mebane, Kern County Cattlemen's Association, in litt. 1995).
The Service is unable to identify any threats to these previously
unknown populations of F. striata.
Two occurrences of Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus may be threatened
directly or indirectly by urbanization. Disturbance associated with
suburban foothill development damaged one occurrence of L. c. var.
deflexus in the early 1980s. Since then, this occurrence appears to be
recovering (CDFG 1989). Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus plants at this
site comprise approximately 14 percent of the occupied acreage (CNDDB
1997). A pad for a house was prepared approximately 12 m (40 ft) up
slope from the plants (CDFG 1992b; Michael Ross, Yosemite Institute, in
litt. 1992), and a garage, driveway, domestic trees and a drip system
have also impacted the area of this occurrence (Lynn Lozier and Rich
Reiner, The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1990). The plants may be
indirectly impacted by overwatering and use of herbicides or pesticides
(M. Ross, in litt. 1992). A second occurrence of L. c. var. deflexus,
including approximately 57 percent of the known acreage, occurs on a
ranch that has been for sale (Ann Mendershausen, Mariposa Resource
Conservation District, pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). The four
remaining occurrences of L. c. var. deflexus are not threatened by
specific development proposals at this time.
At the time of the proposed rule, six occurrences of Mimulus
shevockii were thought to be threatened by mobile home development and
associated road construction. The Service has been able to verify that
development on private land may directly impact two of these six
occurrences. Development on private land may directly impact M.
shevockii at two occurrences that are each a mixture of private and BLM
lands (S. Carter, in litt. 1995c, 1996; CNDDB 1997). At two of the new
M. shevockii occurrences, house construction was occurring on land
where M. shevockii grows (S. Carter, in litt. 1996). The private land
at the second site is subdivided (S. Carter, in litt. 1995c), but the
Service is unaware of specific development plans for the site.
Additionally, at two occurrences managed by BLM, development of
adjacent private lands may indirectly impact M. shevockii growing on
the BLM lands (S. Carter, in litt. 1995b; CNDDB 1997). Agricultural
land conversion may also threaten the species at one of these same
sites (CNDDB 1997). The remaining occurrences representing BLM,
private, and a mixture of private and BLM lands are not known to be
threatened by urbanization at this time.
One occurrence of Navarretia setiloba is threatened by urbanization
where activities such as construction of a housing pad and parking area
have impacted the species (Lynn Overtree, The Nature Conservancy, in
litt. 1993, 1994, 1995; CNDDB 1997). At the time of the proposed rule,
two additional occurrences of N. setiloga were reportedly threatened by
urbanization, one in the Lake Isabella area and one near Grapevine Peak
(Diane Mitchell, botanist, pers. comm. 1992). The Service has been
unable to verify specific threats to these two occurrences and to the
occurrence of N. setiloga in the Caliente area. Additionally, recent
survey information is lacking for the southernmost occurrence of N.
setiloga near Grapevine Peak and for the two westernmost occurrences of
N. setiloga in the Greenhorn Mountains. Although threats from
urbanization to one of the six occurrences of N. setiloga have been
verified, the Service is unaware of specific development proposals that
would affect the other five occurrences of N. setiloga. Therefore, the
Service finds that N. setiloga is not imminently threatened due to
these activities at this time.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a factor affecting the taxa
considered in this withdrawal.
C. Disease or Predation
In the proposed rule (59 FR 50545), livestock grazing was
identified as a potential threat to eight occurrences of Allium
tuolumnense on BLM lands in the Red Hills Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC). Although the BLM authorized livestock
grazing in the Red Hills in 1995 through 1997, no impacts to A.
tuolumnense from livestock grazing have been reported.
Two occurrences of Carpenteria californica on Sierra National
Forest lands were cited in the proposed rule (59 FR 50546) as
threatened by overgrazing. It is now known that cattle do not readily
consume mature plants (J. Clines, in litt. 1997), and the Service no
longer believes livestock grazing to be a threat to mature individuals.
However, livestock grazing and trampling destroys seedlings of C.
californica. In a three-year study of seedling establishment after a
wildfire, less than 10 percent of
[[Page 49072]]
C. californica seedlings survived and most of them were destroyed by
livestock grazing and trampling (Clines 1994). Livestock, however, do
not graze all populations of Carpenteria. For example, several square
miles of occupied Carpenteria habitat occur within the Carpenteria
Botanical Area, an area not grazed by livestock because it is not in an
allotment and not subject to trespass grazing because of impassable
terrain (J. Clines, in litt. 1997). In addition, successful sexual
reproduction does occur in areas accessible to livestock, such as a
cohort that established after a 1989 wildlife and have now reached
heights of up to 240 cm (94 in) (J. Clines, in litt. 1997).
Livestock grazing occurs at most of the occurrences of Fritillaria
striata. Seven observers have reported a variety of livestock grazing
impacts to many of the occurrences of F. striata (CNDDB 1997). These
seven observers were not trained in range management nor did they have
knowledge of grazing history at some locations of F. striata. Based
upon visual observations regarding the amount and severity of impacts
to individual plants and the habitat of F. striata,, the reports have
ranged from light grazing pressure on three occurrences of F. striata
in Kern County to overgrazing and/or trampling as serious threats to
the species at three other locations of F. striata in Kern County
(CNDDB 1997). The latter reports have led to the interpretation that
such observations of grazing impacts to F. striata were general
descriptions of rangeland conditions reflecting poorly on good land
stewardship and/or grazing practices, or that livestock must be
excluded to ensure the survival of the species. Some of the same
observers, however, have reported that low levels of livestock grazing
with avoidance during the flowering season may benefit the species
(CDFG 1992c). The long term effects of grazing and/or trampling to F.
striata are currently unknown. The Service concludes that direct
consumption of the plant and/or destruction caused by trampling of the
flowers has been repeatedly and independently observed. The Service
finds, therefore, that not all livestock grazing threatens the species,
but under some circumstances, livestock overgrazing and/or trampling
may threaten three occurrences of F. striata in Kern County (CNDDB
1997).
In the proposed rule, overgrazing by cattle was also identified as
a potential threat to Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (59 FR 50540), but
this threat has not been substantiated. Since grazing was identified as
a threat in the early 1980's, the plants are now apparently recovering
in the two occurrences where grazing and trampling were reported to
have damaged populations of L. c. var. deflexus (CDFG 1989; CNPS 1990;
CDFG 1992b). At least one occurrence of L. c. var. deflexus is
currently grazed by livestock, but it is not thought to be a threat to
the population (CDFG 1989, CNDDB 1997, A. Mendershausen, pers. comm.
1997). The long-term effects of light grazing or trampling on the
plants are currently unknown (CDFG 1989, CNDDB 1997).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of California Fish and Game Commission has listed
Carpenteria californica, Fritillaria striata, and Lupinus deflexus (now
known as Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus) as threatened species (Chapter
1.5 Sec. 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14
California Code of Regulations 670.2). Although the ``take'' of State-
listed plants is prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act,
Chapter 10 Sec. 1908 and California Endangered Species Act, Chapter 1.5
Sec. 2080), State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat
modification or land use changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a
landowner that a State-listed plant grows on his or her property, State
law only requires that the land owner 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).
On September 29, 1997, legislation was approved for the California
Fish and Game Code that ``declares that if any provision of this
chapter requires a person to provide mitigation measures or
alternatives to address a particular impact on a candidate species,
threatened species, or endangered species, the measures or alternatives
required shall be roughly proportional in extent to any impact on those
species that is caused by that person. Where various measures or
alternatives are available to meet this obligation, the measures or
alternatives required shall maintain the person's objectives to the
greatest extent possible with this section'' (Johnston and Machado
1997). California Senate Bill 879, 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 that all impacts be fully mitigated and all
measures be capable of successful implementation. These requirements
have not been tested and several years will be required to evaluate
their effectiveness for conservation of species.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full
disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects.
The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the
project is designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for
conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other
agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible
for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but are not so listed
are given the same protection as those species that are officially
listed with the State or Federal governments. Once significant effects
are identified, the lead agency has the option to require mitigation
for effects through changes in the project or to decide that overriding
considerations make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects
may be approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as
destruction of endangered species. Protection of listed species through
CEQA is therefore dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved.
In addition, CEQA guidelines recently have been revised in ways which,
if made final, may weaken protections for threatened, endangered, and
other sensitive species.
Despite the potential inadequacies in existing regulatory
mechanisms, the Service has found insufficient substantive evidence of
threats to the six plant taxa in this notice of withdrawal to warrant
their listing as threatened or endangered species under the Act. In the
absence of such threats, the potential inadequacies of these regulatory
mechanisms are irrelevant.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
OHV use has been reported as a threat to Allium tuolumnense,
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii, and Navarretia
setiloba. However, only one occurrence of A. tuolumnense inside the BLM
Red Hills ACEC is threatened by OHV use (CNDDB 1997). Historic damages
to two other occurrences of A. tuolumnense have been reported from OHV
use, but no recent impacts have been noted at those locations (CNDDB
1997). OHV use was reported as a threat to parts of four occurrences of
Carpenteria californica. Because no further impacts to these
occurrences have been reported since
[[Page 49073]]
1987, the Service considers that there are no threats to these four
occurrences. Previously, OHV use destroyed some plants at one
occurrence of L. c. var. deflexus (CDFG 1989). However, the Service has
not received information regarding any further OHV use or recent damage
at this site. An OHV road bisects one occurrence of M. shevockii and a
gravel road bisects another occurrence (CNDDB 1997). Ongoing OHV
activity could threaten this plant at this one location. Currently,
off-highway vehicle use has been observed at four sites where M.
shevockii occurs (S. Carter, in litt. 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1996; CNDDB
1997), but the Service has not received information indicating that the
magnitude of the impacts to M. shevockii are likely to threaten the
continued existence of the species. One occurrence of N. setiloba has
been disturbed by OHV use in the past (CNDDB 1997), but the Service has
not received further information indicating that this activity
continues to be a threat at the site.
Fire suppression activities and development took place in the
northerly occurrence of Mimulus shevockii in 1997. A bulldozer was
driven through part of the occurrence and a log deck built on top of
another part of the occurrence. Mimulus shevockii plants and habitat
were directly impacted by these activities (S. Carter, pers. comm.
1997b). Events like these are considered by the Service to be localized
and do not pose a significant threat to the survival of the species.
Since the time of the proposed rule, the need for fire management
for the successful sexual reproduction of Carpenteria californica on
the Sierra National Forest was recognized, and work is underway in the
Kings River and Pineridge ranger districts constructing a network of
the necessary fuelbreaks prior to commencement of a five-year
controlled burning program (J. Clines, in litt. 1997). The first area
scheduled to be burned is the Carpenteria Botanical Area because the
area is not in a cattle allotment. Trespass cattle will not be a
problem due to the rocky terrain, eliminating the conflict with cattle
grazing after prescribed burns (J. Clines, in litt. 1997). Although the
Sierra National Forest has taken some necessary steps to proactively
conserve the species on Federal lands, the difficulties in conducting
necessary prescribed burns with multiple private land owners may pose a
threat to C. californica on private lands which contain the remaining
30 percent of the species. To date, no prescribed burns of C.
californica on private forest lands have been conducted with the
assistance of the California Department of Forestry and Fire under its
Vegetation Management Program, the enhancement of sexual reproduction
of the species (Bill Richards, California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection, pers comm. 1997). Therefore, the Service considers the
lack of necessary fire management of C. californica on private lands to
be a potential threat to the species.
Although Fritillaria striata may be threatened by competition from
non-native grasses such as Avena (wild oat) and Bromus (brome) as
mentioned in the proposed rule, the Service has received no credible
scientific data to suggest that any populations of F. striata have been
adversely affected or losses of populations have occurred as a result
of such competition.
Small population size or fluctuations to small size increase the
susceptibility of a population to extirpation from random demographic,
environmental and/or genetic events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988;
Meffe and Carroll 1994). Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for
one or more populations of Allium tuolumnense, Fritillaria striata,
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, and Navarretia setiloba (CNDDB 1997).
Because of the clonal nature of A. tuolumnense (BioSystems Analysis
1984), actual numbers of genetic individuals in populations of this
species may be even smaller than reported. Demographic events that may
put small populations of these four species at risk involve random
fluctuations in survival and reproduction of individuals (Shaffer 1981,
1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and Carroll 1994). Environmental events that
may put small populations at risk include random or unpredictable
fluctuations in the physical environment such as changes in the weather
(Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993; Meffe and Carroll 1994). These
species may be subject to increased genetic drift and inbreeding as a
consequence of their small population sizes (Menges 1991, Ellstrand and
Elam 1993). Populations that are continually small in size are
particularly susceptible to genetic changes due to drift. However,
drift may also cause genetic changes in populations that occasionally
fluctuate to small sizes (e.g. undergo population bottlenecks).
Increased homozygosity resulting from genetic drift and inbreeding may
lead to a loss of the ability of individuals to survive and reproduce
(genetic fitness) in small populations. In addition, reduced genetic
variation in small populations may make any species less able to
successfully adapt to future environmental changes (Ellstrand and Elam
1993). Thus, portions of four of the six species are threatened by
potential loss of genetic fitness and/or genetic variability as well as
by demographic and environmental uncertainty associated with small
population sizes.
Five of the six species addressed in this rule are known from few
populations and/or from very small ranges. Carpenteria californica,
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii, and Navarretia
setiloba are each known from eight or fewer occurrences (CNDDB 1997).
Although Allium tuolumnense is known from more than eight occurrences,
the species is known only from four general localities comprising a 342
sq km (132 sq mi) area. The distribution in each locality is much
smaller than the overall range indicates, approximately 90 sq km (35 sq
mi) in the Red Hills, 23 sq km (9 sq mi) at Quartz Mountain, 10 sq km
(4 sq mi) at Table Mountain, and less than 3 sq km (1 sq mi) in the
Moccasin area (CNDDB 1997). Similarly, N. setiloba is composed of a few
small, widely scattered populations within a larger 4,000 sq km (1,560
sq mi) range. Currently, known occupied habitat of N. setiloba consists
of less than 6.5 ha (16 ac) (CNDDB 1997). Lupinus citrinus var.
deflexus and M. shevockii are known from very small ranges. The range
of L. c. var. deflexus is only 40 sq km (15 sq mi) (CNDDB 1997).
Mimulus shevockii grows within two general areas, the larger southern
portion comprising about 31 sq km (12 sq mi) (CNDDB 1997). Few
populations, small range, and/or restricted habitat make these five
species highly susceptible to extinction or extirpation from a
significant portion of their ranges due to random events, such as
flood, drought, disease, or other occurrences (Shaffer 1981, 1987;
Meffe and Carroll 1994). Such events are not usually a concern until
the number of populations or geographic distribution become severely
limited, as is the case with the species discussed here. Once the
number of populations, the range, or the plant population size is
reduced, the remnant populations, or portions of populations, have a
higher probability of extinction from random events.
Finding and Withdrawal
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available the Service has determined that listing of Allium
tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, Fritillaria striata, Lupinus
citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii, and Navarretia setiloba is
not needed at this time. The Service has carefully assessed the best
[[Page 49074]]
scientific and commercial information available in the determination of
whether to list these species.
At the time of the proposed rule, Allium tuolumnense was thought to
be threatened by urbanization, overgrazing, mining, and OHV use on 25
percent of its range on private lands. The remaining 75 percent of the
population on public lands was potentially threatened by grazing.
Subsequently, the Service has not been able to verify that overgrazing
occurs at the grazed sites on public or private lands. The threats
posed by commercial placer mining no longer exist because the mining
company is no longer in business. The development of three subdivisions
has impacted several occurrences of A. tuolumnense on private lands.
However, because 75 percent of the occurrences of A. tuolumnense are on
public lands, urbanization is not and will not be a major threat to the
species over most of its range. Although historic damage from OHV use
has been reported on two occurrences of A. tuolumnense, only one
occurrence is considered currently threatened by OHV use. Two
occurrences of A. tuolumnense are threatened by road maintenance. Thus,
collectively, the Service has been able to verify threats to 6 of the
21 occurrences of A. tuolumnense. The small range, its restricted
serpentine habitat, and clonal distribution of A. tuolumnense make this
species susceptible to local extirpation from portions of its range due
to random environmental events, but this threat, in the absence of
other significant threats to the species, is insufficient to warrant
listing under the Act. Therefore, the Service finds that A. tuolumnense
is not threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range nor is it likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future and does not meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species.
At the time of the proposed rule, Carpenteria californica was
thought to be threatened by urbanization, highway construction,
maintenance of roads and rights-of-way in connection with
hydroelectrical operations, competition from native brush species,
logging, illegal dumping, incompatible fire management activities,
overgrazing, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and OHV use over one
third of its range on private lands. Carpenteria californica was
thought to be threatened by alteration of natural fire cycles, OHV use,
and maintenance of roads and rights-of-way on the remaining two-thirds
of its range on public lands. Historic impacts from urbanization,
illegal dumping, logging, OHV use, and road maintenance have occurred
on a small-scale basis and constitute low magnitude, imminence, and
frequency impacts to C. californica. Although 30 percent of the range
of C. californica has been lost, a low likelihood exists that a
significant portion of the remaining individual plants or habitat will
be lost in the foreseeable future because 70 percent of the remaining
plants exist on the Sierra National Forest which has started a program
to enhance the sexual reproduction of the species using prescribed
fire. Fire management for the successful reproduction of the species
followed by three years rest from livestock grazing needed for the
longterm survival of the species is not occurring on private lands.
Consequently, the Service considers that continued fire suppression and
non-management of C. californica on private lands threatens the species
across the 30 percent of its range on private lands. Highway
construction will not take place for at least another 20 years and
would impact one portion of one occurrence of C. californica. Although
the Service has information regarding the adverse impacts of
overgrazing and trampling to seedlings of C. californica, no
information has been presented to verify any adverse effects of grazing
on mature plants on private or public lands over the range of the
species. Further, no scientific information has been presented to
suggest that competition from native brush species has any adverse
impact to C. californica. Although C. californica is known from seven
localities, including a new occurrence since the publication of the
proposed rule, over a relatively large range, the species has few
occurrences and is susceptible to extirpations from random
environmental events. Therefore, the Service concludes that C.
californica is not threatened with extinction throughout all or
significant portion of its range nor is it likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future and does not meet the
definition of threatened or endangered.
Prior to the proposed rule, agricultural land conversion extirpated
three occurrences of Fritillaria striata in Tulare County and one in
Kern County and continues to threaten two occurrences in Tulare County.
Road maintenance threatens one occurrence and livestock grazing may
threaten three occurrences of F. striata in Kern County. Five
occurrences of F. striata have populations numbers of less than 100
individuals each and are susceptible to extirpation from random
demographic, environmental and/or genetic events. The collective
threats to 11 of the 23 known occurrences, including six new
occurrences since the proposed rule was published, and the lack of
specific threats to the numerous unverified occurrences of F. striata
,are insufficient across the range of the species to warrant listing
the species at this time. Therefore, the Service finds that F. striata
is not threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range in the foreseeable future and does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered species.
At the time of the proposed rule, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus
was thought to be threatened by urbanization and inadequate State
regulatory mechanisms, and potentially by overgrazing. Subsequently,
the Service has not been able to verify that overgrazing occurs at the
grazed sites where L. c. var. deflexus is found. Continued or future
urbanization may threaten at least two occurrences of L. c. var.
deflexus. Inadequate State regulatory mechanisms and extirpation from
random events due to small population sizes, small number of
populations, and the restricted range of the species may threaten all
occurrences of L. c. var. deflexus. However, the Service has been
unable to verify imminent threats to four of the six occurrences of L.
c. var. deflexus. Therefore, the Service finds that L. c. var. deflexus
is not threatened with extinction throughout all or significant portion
of its range nor is it likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future and does not meet the definition of threatened
or endangered.
At the time of the proposed rule, occurrences of Mimulus shevockii
were threatened by urbanization, OHV use, and agricultural land
conversion. Currently, development on-site or on adjacent private land
and OHV use have been observed at four occurrences (S. Carter, in litt.
1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1996; CNDDB 1997). During the comment periods, the
Service received information that the range of the species may be
greater than understood at the time of the proposed rule and that
potential additional habitat requires surveying. Agricultural land
conversion may also threaten one of these same occurrences (CNDDB
1997). The most threatened portion of the range may be the private
lands in the disjunct northwest occurrence. Reported threats to this
occurrence include development, OHV use, agricultural land conversion,
and fire suppression actions (S. Carter, in litt. 1995c, 1996; S.
Carter, pers. comm. 1997b; CNDDB 1997). Because this portion of the
range is both the most
[[Page 49075]]
northerly and disjunct, any activities that threaten its continued
existence may constitute a threat to the species as a whole. Although
urbanization, OHV use, agriculture land conversion, and random
extirpation from the small number of populations and the restricted
range of the species continue to put M. shevockii at risk, current
threats that warrant listing of the species have not been identified
and three additional occurrences have been discovered. Therefore, the
Service finds that M. shevockii is not threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable
future and does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered
species.
At the time of the proposed rule, Navarretia setiloba was thought
to be threatened by urbanization and OHV use. Current and future
urbanization and OHV use potentially threaten the two occurrences in
the Lake Isabella area (L. Overtree, in litt. 1993, 1994, 1995; CNDDB
1997). Future urbanization may threaten at least one other occurrence
of N. setiloba but no specific development proposals are known. This
species is at risk from random extirpation due to small population
sizes, small numbers of populations, and the restricted range of the
species. The Service lacks the specific information indicating that
listing is warranted for N. setiloba at this time. Based on all of this
information, the Service finds that N. setiloba is not threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and it
is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future and does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered
species.
References Cited
A list of all references cited herein is available upon request
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author. The primary authors of this withdrawal notice are Diane
Elam, Kenneth Fuller, and Dwight Harvey, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 1, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-24501 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}