Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95821-6340
99-11
Refer: Patricia Foulk, Sacramento, California - 916/979-2710 (x456)
E-mail: Patricia_Foulk@mail.fws.gov
For Release March 22, 1999
FINAL STRATEGY TO RECOVER 28 BAY AREA
ANIMALS AND PLANTS NOW AVAILABLE
SACRAMENTO -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released its final strategy for recovering 28 plants and animals found primarily on serpentine soils in California's San Francisco Bay area. These species occur in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma counties.
The 14 federally-listed species include 11 endangered plants -- coyote ceanothus, fountain thistle, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, Pennell's bird's-beak, Presidio clarkia, San Mateo thornmint, San Mateo woolly sunflower, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Tiburon jewelflower, Tiburon paintbrush, and white-rayed pentachaeta; two threatened plants -- Marin dwarf-flax and Tiburon mariposa lily; and a threatened animal, the bay checkerspot butterfly.
The remaining plants and animals are considered "species of concern." They include six plants -- Baker's manzanita, Crystal Springs lessingia, most beautiful jewelflower, Mount Hamilton thistle, smooth lessingia, and Tamalpais lessingia -- and eight animals -- Edgewood blind harvestman, Edgewood microblind harvestman, Fairmont microblind harvestman, Hom's microblind harvestman, Jung's microblind harvestman, Marin microblind harvestman, Tiburon microblind harvestman, and Opler's longhorn moth. (Popularly known as "daddy longlegs," harvestmen are primarily nocturnal spiders with legs that are unusually long and thin in relation to their small oval-shaped bodies.)
All these animals and plants occur in dry, nutrient-poor, serpentine soil grasslands of the greater San Francisco Bay area and adjacent foothills and valleys. Serpentine soils provide a harsh environment for plant growth because they lack essential fertilizing elements such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous, support high concentrations of heavy metals, which are toxic to most plants, and have a low calcium/magnesium ratio. Nevertheless, serpentine soils are inhabited by a diverse array of plant species; 10 percent of all California plants are found only on these soils.
Habitat loss and fragmentation of the few remaining larger blocks of serpentine in the Bay Area are the prime threats to these species. Habitat conversion to urban and industrial uses has eliminated the majority of their historic range. Moreover, natural communities have been altered permanently by the introduction of aggressive, non-native plants, which now dominate many of the remaining undeveloped areas.
Because 50 percent of these plants and animals currently receive Federal protection, a number of conservation measures for them are already in place. For example, at the Presidio in San Francisco, the National Park Service has been actively managing two plant species -- Presidio clarkia and Marin dwarf-flax; Waste Management of California, Inc. and the City of San Jose signed a conservation agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986 to mitigate impacts to bay checkerspot butterflies resulting from construction of the Kirby Canyon landfill; the Edgewood Nature Preserve in Redwood City in San Mateo County supports eight species; Ring Mountain, a Marin County Open Space District, is home to five species; and the California Department of Fish and Game is protecting Baker's manzanita and Pennell's bird's-beak at the Harrison Grade Ecological Reserve near Santa Rosa in Sonoma County.
This recovery plan presents a community-level strategy for recovery and conservation because the addressed plants and animals live in the same natural communities and their needs are intertwined. Thus, protection of entire communities increases the likelihood of successful recovery for the listed species and will also decrease the need to regulate protection of the other plants and animals. Successful recovery of the serpentine animals and plants will depend on the cooperation and collaboration of various stakeholders, including private landowners, local governments and individuals, and state and Federal agencies.
Recovery and long-term conservation tasks emphasized in this plan are habitat protection, habitat management and restoration, surveying and monitoring, off-site measures such as artificial rearing and seed banking, research, and public participation, outreach and education. Control of invasive exotic plants is a high priority in several areas. Other potential management strategies include various forms of vegetation management, such as grazing and fire.
Recovering endangered species to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is the primary goal of the Endangered Species Act. Recovery plans, which are essentially blueprints for action by Federal, state, and other public agencies, and private interests, do not obligate the expenditure of funds or require that actions be implemented.
Copies of the final recovery plan for these Bay Area species is available from Diane Elam, Recovery Coordinator, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento CA 95821-6340.
- FWS -
Backgrounder & Q&A on the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species o the San
Francisco Bay Area
March 1999
___________________________________________________________________
Backgrounder
Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area
• 28 plants and animals are covered in this plan, 14 of which are federally
listed. There are 11 endangered plants -- coyote ceanothus, fountain thistle, Metcalf
Canyon jewelflower, Pennell's bird's-beak, Presidio clarkia, San Mateo thornmint, San
Mateo woolly sunflower, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Tiburon jewelflower, Tiburon paint
brush, and white-rayed pentachaeta; two threatened plants -- Marin dwarf-flax and Tiburon
mariposa lily; and one threatened animal, the bay checkerspot butterfly.
• Fourteen plants and animals are "species of concern". They include six
plants – Baker's manzanita, Crystal Springs lessingia, most beautiful jewelflower,
Mount Hamilton thistle, smooth lessingia, and Tamalpais lessingia; and eight animals
– Edgewood blind harvestman, Edgewood microblind harvestman, Fairmont microblind
harvestman, Hom's microblind harvestman, Jung's microblind harvestman, Marin blind
harvestman, Tiburon microblind harvestman, and Opler's longhorn moth.
• Harvestman are popularly known as daddy longlegs.
• All species are found primarily on serpentine soils and serpentine grasslands areas
of the San Francisco Bay area, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma counties.
• Serpentine soils are dry and nutrient poor. They lack essential fertilizing
elements such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus; support high concentrations of heavy
metals which are toxic to most plants, and have a low calcium/magnesium ratio.
• Ten percent of all California plants are found only on serpentine soils.
• Existing populations are threatened by loss of habitat and by fragmentation of the
few remaining larger blocks of serpentine soil in the Bay area.
Recovery Plan
• The Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area was
finalized on September 30, 1998.
• The goal of the recovery plan is to delist 7 of the 14 endangered and threatened
species, improve the security of 7 of the 14 listed species, and ensure the long-term
conservation of the 14 species of concern.
• The plan presents a community-level strategy for recovery because all of the
species co-occur in the same natural community. Likelihood of success is increased by
protecting entire communities.
• Recommended recovery actions include habitat protection and management, monitoring
and research programs, and public participation, outreach and education.
• Adaptive management is a crucial component of the plan. Adaptive management is
where management techniques are applied, population responses are monitored, the outcome
is evaluated, and management practices are readjusted accordingly.
• Total cost of recovery is approximately $172,940,000 to be completed over a 15 to
30 year time frame.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area
Q. What are the major factors threatening the survival of the 28 plants and animals addressed in this recovery plan?
A. Conversion of habitat to urban and industrial uses has destroyed the majority of the historic ranges of these plants and animals. In addition, the remaining serpentine soil grasslands communities are often fragmented, and are of marginal quality in which these species may not survive during catastrophic events, such as fire or persistent drought. Moreover, natural communities have been altered permanently by the introduction of aggressive, nonnative plants.
Q. What is meant by recovery?
A. Recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats neutralized so that its survival in the wild can be ensured. The goal of the Endangered Species Act is the recovery of listed species to levels where protection under the Act is no longer necessary.
Q. What are recovery plans?
A. Recovery plans are documents that detail the specific tasks needed to recover listed species. They provide a blueprint for private, Federal, and State cooperation in the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. A recovery plan is a reference document identifying actions that if implemented, are expected to recover the species. Any actions implemented must follow appropriate State, local, or Federal laws and regulations. Cooperation from private landowners is voluntary.
Q. Are recovery plans required by law?
A. Yes. Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act calls for the development and implementation of recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened unless such plans would not contribute to their conservation.
Q. How long does it take to write a recovery plan?
A. In July 1994, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a policy stating that recovery plans are to be completed within two and a half years of the species' date of listing.
Q. Who writes a recovery plan?
A. Recovery plans may be written by biologists within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and may incorporate the expertise of individuals from other Federal or State agencies or private contractors. Another alternative is to form a recovery team to develop a plan. A new policy -- part of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's Ten Point Plan -- significantly expanded recovery participation beginning in July 1994. The policy directs that local jurisdictions, private organizations and affected citizens be included in recovery plan development and implementation. These changes in policy require that the Service solicit State agency expertise and participation in both recovery planning and implementation. Service policy emphasizes the importance of integrating Federal, Tribal, State, and private efforts to recover listed species. The Service reviews outside work and may modify drafts as necessary to ensure consistency, resolve disputes and establish priorities. Plans must identify management tasks, research needs and other cations necessary to reach the plans' goals. Since 1994, to ensure that all recovery actions are based on the best available scientific information, the Service is requiring that all recovery plans be independently peer-reviewed.
Q. Who wrote the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area?
A. The plan was primarily prepared by Diane R. Elam, David H. Wright, and Bradley Goettle of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Q. How was the public involved in the planning process?
A. In March 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released the Draft Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area for a 90-day comment period. The comment period ended on June 22, 1998. Twenty-nine letters were received, each with one or more comments. Many comments were incorporated into the final version of the plan. Comments not incorporated in the plan are addressed in Chapter VII of the plan.
Q. What are the recovery objectives of this plan?
A. The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to delist 7 of the 14 endangered and threatened species, improve the security of 7 of the 14 listed species, and ensure the long-term conservation of the 14 species of concern. An interim goal is to downlist the endangered species to threatened species.
Q. What is a community-level strategy and why is it used in this plan?
A. The plan presents a community-level strategy for recovery and conservation because all of the species co-occur in the same natural community. The likelihood of successful recovery for listed species is increased by protecting entire communities, and by doing so, conservation of species of concern is also possible.
Q. What recovery actions are recommended in this plan?
A. Recovery and long-term conservation tasks emphasized in this plan include habitat protection; habitat management and restoration, including removal of invasive non-native species; surveying and monitoring; conservation measures such as artificial rearing and seed banking; research; and public participation, outreach, and education.
Q. What is the total estimated cost of recovery actions outlined in this plan?
A. The total estimated cost of downlisting, delisting, or improving the security of the 14 federally listed species, and conservation of the 14 species of concern is broken down by priority of tasks. Priority 1 tasks are those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the near future. The estimated costs for priority one tasks are $144,290,000. Priority 2 tasks are those actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in the species population or habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact. Estimated costs for priority 2 are $26,260,000. Priority 3 tasks are all other actions necessary to meet the recovery and conservation objectives of the plan. Costs are estimated at $2,390,000.
Q. Does Congress provide money for recovery?
A. Yes, specific amounts are appropriated by congress for recovery and are included in the Service's endangered species program budget.
Q. How long will recovery of these species take?
A. Recovery is anticipated to take approximately 15 to 30 years.
Q. Why does it take so long for species to recover?
A. Typically, reversing or halting the decline of a species is a gradual process that may take years, or even decades. Even experts may have an incomplete understanding of the cause of a species' decline. This makes designing an effective plan for recovering the species difficult. Research can usually identify what is causing the decline, but this takes time. Once the causes of decline have been correctly identified and recovery actions implemented, the unpredictable nature of ecological systems may produce unanticipated results, requiring development of new or modified approaches.
Q. Are any conservation measures currently underway?
A. Yes, several conservation efforts are already in place. For example, at the Presidio, the National Park Service has been actively managing two plant species – Presidio clarkia and Marin dwarf-flax; Waste Management of California, Inc. and the City of San Jose signed a conservation agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986 to mitigate impacts to bay checkerspot butterflies resulting from construction of the Kirby Canyon landfill; the Edgewood Nature Preserve in Redwood City supports eight species; and the California Department of Fish and Game is protecting Baker's manzanita and Pennell's bird's-beak at Harrison Grade Ecological Reserve in Sonoma County.
Q. Who is responsible for implementing the plan?
A. Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility for implementing this recovery plan, the participation of a variety of groups is essential to successful recovery. Therefore, the plan recommends the establishment of a regional, cooperative public/private recovery plan implementation team to enlist the participation of all stakeholder groups and interested parties.
Q. Do recovery programs work?
A. Yes. But recovery is a challenge that takes time; it seeks to halt or reverse declines that in some instances have been many years in the making. On average, even in the face of a substantial increase in the number of species listed over the past decade, the recovery efforts of the Service, other Federal agencies, States, tribal governments and private landowners have managed to hold those species with declining population trends to an overall average of 35 percent. Of all the species listed between 1968 and 1998, less than 1 percent have been recognized as extinct, and subsequently delisted. The fact that almost 99 percent of listed species have not been lost speaks to the success of the Act as a mechanism for conservation of species that are at risk of extinction.
