[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 54 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14878-14888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6836]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Threatened Status for Chlorogalum purpureum (Purple Amole), a Plant
From the South Coast Ranges of California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine threatened
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), for the California plant, Chlorogalum purpureum (purple amole).
This species comprises two varieties, C. p. var. purpureum and C. p.
var. reductum. Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is known only from
the south coast ranges in Monterey County, on lands managed by the
Department of the Army at Fort Hunter Liggett. It is threatened by loss
and alteration of habitat, direct loss of plants from construction and
use of military training facilities and from military field training
activities, displacement by nonnative annual grasses, and potentially
by alteration of fire cycles due to military training. Livestock
grazing is a potential threat, as grazing may be reinstated in occupied
habitat in the future. The other variety, C. p. var. reductum, is known
only from two sites in the La Panza region of the coast ranges in San
Luis Obispo County, on U.S. Forest Service and private lands. It is
threatened by illegal vehicle trespass into the population on Forest
Service land, road maintenance, displacement by nonnative annual
grasses, and by livestock grazing depending upon the intensity of
grazing use within the population area. This final rule implements the
Federal protection and recovery provisions afforded by the Act.
Although this rule lists Chlorogalum purpureum at the species level,
each variety should be treated as a separate taxonomic unit for the
purposes of applying the section 7 jeopardy standard and identifying
recovery units, if applicable.
DATES: This rule is effective April 19, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road,
Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz, Assistant Field Supervisor,
Listing and Recovery, at the address above (telephone 805/644-1766;
facsimile 805/644-3958).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Chlorogalum purpureum was first described by Brandegee in 1893 from
specimens collected in the Santa Lucia Mountains by William Vortriede a
year earlier (Brandegee 1893). In 1904, E.L. Greene (1904) published
the new combination Laothoe purpurea when he discovered that the genus
name Laothoe had been published earlier than Chlorogalum. However, R.F.
Hoover (1940) reinstated use of the name Chlorogalum through the rule
of nomen conservandum. Hoover (1964) described the variety reductum
(Camatta Canyon amole), first collected in the late 1940s, based on its
shorter stature compared to the nominative variety. This nomenclature
was retained in the most recent treatment of the genus (Jernstedt
1993). These two varieties comprise the entire species.
Chlorogalum purpureum is a bulb-forming perennial herb in the lily
family (Liliaceae). It has a basal rosette of linear leaves 2 to 5
millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.2 inches (in)) wide with wavy margins. A
widely branching stem supports bluish-purple flowers with six recurved
tepals (petals and sepals that have a similar appearance). The stems of
C. p. var. purpureum are 25 to 40 centimeters (cm) (10 to 16 in) high,
whereas those of C. p. var. reductum are only 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in)
high (Hoover 1964, Jernstedt 1993). Chlorogalum purpureum is the only
member of the genus with bluish-purple flowers that open during the day
(Jernstedt 1993).
Reproduction in Chlorogalum purpureum is primarily by seed. Each
flower contains six ovules, although not all develop into seeds in the
wild (Hoover 1964). The species is reported to be self-compatible, and
insect pollination appears to result in increased seed set (D. Wilken,
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, in litt. 1998; M. Elvin, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, pers. com. 1998). Hoover (1940) reports that clonal
reproduction by longitudinal splitting of the bulbs is rare; some
splitting has been noted in one population of C. p. var. reductum
(Alice Koch, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm.
1997b).
Chlorogalum purpureum occurs in grassland, oak woodland, and oak
savannah between 300 and 620 meters (m) (1,000 and 2,050 feet (ft)) in
elevation in the south coast ranges of California. Like other members
of the lily family, C. purpureum is probably mycorrhizal (develops
root-hyphae relationships with a fungus).
Mycorrhizal relationships can aid in nutrient and water uptake by a
host plant and can alter growth and competitive interactions between
species (Allen 1991).
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is known from oak woodlands
and grasslands at three sites near Jolon in Monterey County on lands
owned and managed by the Department of the Army (Fort Hunter Liggett).
Historically, appropriate habitat may have existed east of the base, in
Jolon Valley, but most of the flat areas in that valley have been
converted to cropland, pasture, or vineyards. At Fort Hunter Liggett,
the plant occurs on flat or gently sloping terrain with a gravelly
surface underlain by clay soils, often where other herbaceous
vegetation is sparse.
Of the three localities of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum,
one comprises discontinuous and fragmented patches of plants scattered
over an area 7 to 9 kilometers (km) (4 to 6 miles (mi)) long and about
5 km (3 mi) wide in the cantonment (housing and administration area),
the Ammunition Supply Point, adjacent Training Area 13, and the
boundary of Training Area 10 (U.S. Army Reserve Command 1996; map
provided by D. Hines, in litt. 1998; Painter and Neese 1998). While
some of the discontinuities in distribution are due to unsuitable
intervening habitat, other patches have been fragmented by roads, the
historical settlement of Jolon, and military training facilities. No
population counts have been made at this site, but estimates of some
areas within it suggest that it supports several thousand plants (U.S.
Department of the Army 1997, Painter and Neese 1998). The second
locality is about 4 km (2.5 mi) to the southeast in Training Area 25.
The taxon is patchily distributed in an area of about 6 square km (2
square mi) that is laced with vehicle tracks and dirt roads. At one
location there, 400 to 500 plants have been recorded (Painter and Neese
1998), but the entire site may support several thousand individuals.
The third and southernmost locality is at the boundaries of Training
Areas 23, 24, and 27. This is the largest known site and contains
plants in high densities. Following a fire that may have
[[Page 14879]]
promoted flowering, this site was estimated to support up to 10,000
plants (Painter and Neese 1998).
The primary threats to Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum are the
loss, fragmentation, and alteration of habitat and direct elimination
of plants from construction and use of military training facilities,
military field training activities, displacement by nonnative annual
grasses, and potentially by alteration of fire cycles due to military
training. Livestock grazing and associated habitat changes may threaten
this taxon if grazing is resumed in occupied habitat in the future.
About 110 km (70 mi) to the south, Chlorogalum purpureum var.
reductum occurs in one region in the La Panza Range of San Luis Obispo
County. It is currently known from only two sites. The larger site is
located adjacent to a two-lane State highway; a smaller site is located
approximately 5 to 8 km (3 to 5 mi) farther to the south. The larger
locality is located on a narrow, flat-topped ridge or plateau
supporting blue oak (Quercus douglasii) savannah. This plateau,
bisected by a highway, is probably the remains of an ancient elevated
alluvial terrace (a terrace consisting of material deposited by running
water), most of which has been eroded away by surrounding drainages
that are now 90 to 120 m (300 to 400 ft) below the plateau (H.
Ehrenspeck, in litt. 1994). The soils have been described as well-
drained red clays with a large component of gravel and pebbles (Hoover
1964, Lopez 1992). North of the highway, the population occurs on
private lands. South of the highway, it grows on public lands managed
by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on Los Padres National Forest (LPNF).
A few plants may extend into the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way along the highway. Caltrans has
designated both sides of the highway right-of-way in this area as
Botanical Management Areas. These areas are to be managed for their
special resource values (D. Magney, consulting biologist, pers. comm.
1999).
This population is patchily distributed over the plateau and has
been estimated to occupy just 2 to 3 hectares (ha) (fewer than 8 acres
(ac)) south of the highway and probably somewhat less on the highway's
north side (Gaskin 1990; Lopez 1992; M. Borchert and K. Danielsen,
USFS, pers. comm. 1997). A graded dirt road about 10 m (30 ft) wide
bisects the portion of the population on public land. The road leads to
private inholdings and residences on the LPNF and is bounded on either
side by a pipe barrier that was installed in 1989 or 1990 to prevent
off-highway vehicles (OHVs) from using the site (David Magney,
biological consultant, pers. comm. 1997). A removable portion of the
barrier and a barbed wire section of fence have been routinely breached
by OHVs. Such illegal use was noted to be increasing from 1995 through
1997 (A. Koch, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in litt.
1997a). In 1998, after publication of the proposed rule to list the
species (63 FR 15142), the Forest Service replaced the broken section
of barbed wire fence with a single post barrier and rewelded sections
of broken pipe barrier elsewhere.
Because the site north of the highway is on private land, estimates
of abundance or recent information on habitat conditions are not
currently available. Population size estimates south of the highway, on
public lands, have ranged from 1,000 individuals to several hundred
thousand individuals (Borchert 1981, Warner 1991, Borchert et al.
1997). Some of this variability reflects changes in the above-ground
presence of plants, since bulbs may remain dormant during years with
unfavorable growing conditions. Monitoring along a 100 m (330 ft)
transect showed that plant numbers were relatively stable within the
transect between 1991 and 1997 (Borchert et al. 1997). This transect is
not located in an area where vehicle trespass has continued to occur
and is, therefore, not representative of the status of the population
in areas subject to OHV activity. That portion of the population where
the transect is located is accessible to livestock.
The second known locality of Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum
was first documented by botanists in the mid 1990s. It is located 5 to
8 km (3 to 5 mi) south of the LPNF population in an area with similar
soils and topography (David Chipping, California Polytechnic State
University, in litt. 1997). The taxon has been estimated to occupy less
than 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) and consists of several hundred plants in two or
more patches on private land. The landowner has expressed an interest
in the plant and its protection (D. Chipping, in litt. 1997).
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum is threatened by illegal
vehicle trespass into the larger locality on LPNF.
Livestock use may be detrimental to this taxon depending upon the
intensity of livestock use and the extent to which livestock congregate
in the population area. The effects of livestock grazing on this taxon
need further evaluation.
Previous Federal Action
Federal Government actions on this species began as a result of
section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report
(House Doc. No. 94-51) was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975,
and included Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var.
reductum as endangered. On July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the
Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of our acceptance of the report as a
petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (petition provisions are
now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and of our intention to review
the status of the plant taxa named therein.
On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant
species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. This
list, which included Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and C. p.
var. reductum, was assembled on the basis of comments and data received
by us and by the Smithsonian Institution in response to House Document
No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. General
comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were summarized in
an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978,
amendments to the Endangered Species Act required that all proposals
over 2 years old be withdrawn.
A 1-year grace period was given to those proposals already more
than 2 years old. Subsequently, on December 10, 1979, we published a
notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal of the portion of the June 16,
1976, proposal that had not been made final, along with four other
proposals that had expired. Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and C.
p. var. reductum were included in that withdrawal notice.
On December 15, 1980, we published an updated Candidate Notice of
Review (NOR) for plants (45 FR 82480). This notice included Chlorogalum
purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum as ``category 2
candidates.'' Category 2 candidates were defined as taxa for which we
had data on biological vulnerability and threats indicating that
listing was possibly appropriate, but the data were not sufficient to
support proposed rules. The two Chlorogalum taxa were
[[Page 14880]]
included as category 1 candidates in the revised plant NOR is published
in the Federal Register on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), February
21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Category 1
candidates were defined as those taxa for which we had on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support the preparation of listing proposals, but issuance of proposed
rules was precluded by other pending listing proposals of higher
priority. The two Chlorogalum taxa were included as candidates in the
NOR published on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), as well as in the NOR
published on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398). The definition formerly
applied to category 1 candidates now applies to candidates as a whole.
On March 30, 1998, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(63 FR 15142) to list Chlorogalum purpureum as threatened.
The processing of this final rule conforms with our fiscal year
2000 listing priority guidance, published in the Federal Register on
October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). The guidance establishes the order in
which we will process rulemakings. The guidance calls for giving
highest priority to handling emergency situations (Priority 1). With
the exception of emergency actions, all other listing activities may be
undertaken simultaneously; however, relative priorities for non-
emergency listing actions may be based on the following priority
levels. Processing final decisions on pending proposed listings are
priority 2 actions. Priority 3 actions are the resolution of the
conservation status of species identified as candidates (resulting in a
new proposed rule or a candidate removal). Priority 4 actions are the
processing of 90-day or 12-month administrative findings on petitions.
Critical habitat determinations, which were previously included in
final listing rules published in the Federal Register, may now be
processed separately, in which case stand-alone critical habitat
determinations will be published as notices in the Federal Register.
This final rule is a priority 2 action and is being completed in
accordance with the current listing priority guidance.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the March 30, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 15142), 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 San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune
on April 2, 1998, and in the Monterey Herald on April 10, 1998. The
comment period closed on May 29, 1998.
Nine comments were provided by individuals, organizations, and
agencies on the proposed rule. Six of the commenters supported the
listing, and two commenters opposed it. Several commenters provided
additional technical information that, along with other clarifications,
has been incorporated into the ``Background'' or ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' sections of this final rule. Issues raised by
commenters, and our response to each, are summarized as follows:
Issue 1: Two commenters noted that Chlorogalum purpureum var.
purpureum is present in old roadbeds and areas that have been used or
disturbed by vehicles. They speculated that disturbance may be
beneficial to the plant; one commenter noted that we did not address
this possibility in the proposed rule.
Our response: Observations of flowering Chlorogalum purpureum in
vehicle tracks and scraped areas do exist (Gaskin 1990, Koch 1997).
Because C. purpureum grows from an underground bulb, some mature plants
may be able to survive situations when the above-ground portions are
crushed by vehicles. The reduction in other vegetation may make the
flowering C. purpureum more visible, as even a light cover by annual
grasses can obscure the flowers of this species due to its short
stature. It is also possible that the removal or suppression of
competing vegetation that may occur due to multiple passes of a vehicle
may temporarily make available greater light, water, or nutrient
resources to the surviving C. purpureum plants. Mature C. purpureum
plants may respond to this temporary increase in available resources by
flowering. However, it would be inappropriate to therefore conclude
that the species responds ``favorably'' to disturbance. The type of
``disturbance'' and its effects on all life history stages of the plant
must be considered. For instance, increased flowering has been observed
in many bulb-forming plants following fires (Gill 1977, Zedler and
Zammit 1989). While scraping or vehicle use may mimic the removal of
vegetation that occurs following fires, these activities do not mimic
the other effects of fire (e.g., conversion of thatch and other plant
biomass to ash, alteration of nutrient availability, and soil chemistry
(Gill 1977, Zedler and Zammit 1989)). In addition to crushing or
removal of competing vegetation, vehicle-use in grassland habitats is
also likely to cause soil compaction, loss of cryptogamic crusts, and
introduction and spread of nonnative plant species; damage mycorrhizae;
and crush seedlings, adult rosettes, and flowering stalks. Seedling
establishment of C. purpureum var. reductum in compacted soils is
reduced in comparison to establishment in loosened soils (Koch 1997).
While C. purpureum has evolved in systems that are periodically
``disturbed'' by events such as wildfire, the human-caused
``disturbances'' addressed here do not mimic those with which the plant
has evolved, have many unfavorable effects (as mentioned above), and
take place in an environment where nonnative invasive plants are now
established. We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that vehicle
use, soil surface scraping, and excessive trampling in populations of
C. purpureum would be other than detrimental to their long-term
persistence.
Issue 2: One commenter suggested that quantitative data is
inadequate to support listing Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and
that threats to this taxon discussed in the proposed rule should be
considered only ``potential'' threats. The commenter stated that the
number of documented locations of C. p. var. purpureum has increased,
since 1994, from 5 to about 100, with few documented losses.
Our response: The Act requires that we use the best available
scientific information as the basis for our listing decisions. In
addition to published papers in peer-reviewed journals, scientific
reports, letters, and personal correspondence, we consider professional
judgment and expert opinion by knowledgeable biologists in making
decisions. We have assessed the best available information provided by
the Army at Fort Hunter Liggett and by other parties on the activities
occurring in the locations supporting C. p. var. purpureum. While the
Army has been responsive and shown initiative in implementing their
environmental review process and while this may benefit C. p. var.
purpureum and other sensitive plant species, we conclude that the
activities occurring in the populations of C. p. var. purpureum, and
the damage to associated soils and vegetation, are of sufficient
magnitude that the taxon is imperiled and meets the definition of
``threatened'' under the Act. To assess the comment on the number of
locations of C. p. var. purpureum, we compared the data on
[[Page 14881]]
known locations of C. p. var. purpureum submitted by this commenter
with data we had received previously from this commenter and others on
the locations of C. p. var. purpureum and found no substantial
difference, other than how the locations are described. For instance,
in the proposed rule, we described the northern site of C. p. var.
purpureum as patches of plants occurring over an area 7 to 9 km (4 to 6
mi) long, while the commenter has this area mapped as about 60
individual locations. Because many of the patches of C. p. var.
purpureum in this area grow within 100 meters of one another, gene flow
may be occurring between them, and they may function as one or multiple
populations. Therefore, we concluded that it is most appropriate to
describe the distribution of plants in this area as a single
discontinuous locality. Plants had been documented in this locality by
1994.
Issue 3: One commenter stated that the effects of military training
activities on Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum are not known and
that no evidence exists that foot traffic resulting from use of the
obstacle course will degrade the C. p. var. purpureum sites. In
response to our observation that no areas where this taxon occurs are
off-limits to training, the commenter stated that eliminating military
training from C. p. var. purpureum localities may not be needed because
the plant is doing well at Fort Hunter Liggett under current
conditions.
Our response: We disagree that the plant is doing well at Fort
Hunter Liggett under current conditions. Military training activities,
including field maneuvers, occur in the populations of Chlorogalum
purpureum var. purpureum. Their effects are most evident in the
locality in Training Area 25. Field maneuvers typically involve tracked
and wheeled vehicles, placement of temporary housing (tents) for
troops, digging of latrines, protection berms or bunkers, and use by
hundreds of troops (U.S. Army Reserve Command 1996). Field maneuvers
and bivouacking (temporary encampments) have resulted in soil
compaction, ruts in the soil that alter microhabitat characteristics
(Painter and Neese 1998; D. Steeck, pers. obs. 1998; J. Chesnut,
consulting biologist, in litt. 1998), and loss of most herbaceous
vegetation in areas where troop use is heavy (D. Steeck, pers. obs.
1997, 1998) and may result in direct crushing or trampling of
vegetative or reproductive parts of purple amole. Such activity may
also increase the spread or abundance of nonnative plant species. Other
training activities involve the use of developed facilities, such as
obstacle courses. According to their records (Hormann 1996), the Army
at Fort Hunter Liggett avoided placing individual obstacles for the
obstacle course directly on plants, however the obstacles were placed
within the population. Use of the obstacle course is likely to reduce
seedling establishment through crushing and soil compaction, and the
construction of the course and its use may increase the abundance of
nonnative grasses and weedy species on the site. We conclude that
adequate evidence exists that military training activities, including
field maneuvers and development and use of training facilities such as
the obstacle course, are detrimental to C. p. var. purpureum at Fort
Hunter Liggett.
Issue 4: One commenter stated that, because the historical
distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is not known, the
extent of fragmentation cannot be known.
Our response: We agree that the extent of fragmentation of
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum populations is not known. Patches
of plants may be discontinuous due to differences in soils and
microhabitat conditions, even without human-induced changes to the
landscape. However, in numerous places at Fort Hunter Liggett, plants
occur up to, and on both sides of, a road or other human structure,
strongly suggesting that they were once continuous (for instance,
plants within the ``triangle'' of roads at the entrance gate, those on
both sides of Mission Creek Road and on both sides of the dirt road
leading to the rifle range and conditioning course). In these cases,
depending on pollinator type and amount and type of converted habitat,
gene flow from seed and pollen dispersal between the isolated or
fragmented patches of plants will be reduced. We conclude that the
historical settlement of Jolon on Fort Hunter Liggett and the
construction and use of training areas, roads, and buildings have
fragmented and isolated patches of C. p. var. purpureum.
Issue 5: One commenter suggested that we should not have included
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum in the proposed rule because it
had a candidate listing priority number of 9, suggesting less threat
than that for C. p. var. reductum, which had a candidate listing
priority number of 3.
Our response: Assigning listing priority numbers to candidates,
based on immediacy and degree of threat, is simply a method to help us
prioritize the order in which candidates will be proposed for listing.
By definition, a candidate species is one for which we have determined
that we have adequate information on file to propose listing. When
candidate species occur together in the same habitat or have close
taxonomic affinities, we often include them together in a listing
package to increase efficiency. The two taxa addressed in this listing
make up the entire species Chlorogalum purpureum, so it is appropriate
to address the entire species in one rule.
Issue 6: One commenter stated that a new road was not constructed
at Fort Hunter Liggett as had been reported in 1988 by an observer. The
commenter stated that Fort Hunter Liggett simply repaved an abandoned
road that had fallen into disrepair. An aerial photograph from 1950 was
presented to document the statement.
Our response: We have reviewed the photo and agree that it appears
that the road in question was in place by 1950. The area where the
plants are located (the commenter has illustrated their location on the
photo) does not appear to have been surrounded by roads in 1950,
however, suggesting that additional road construction since 1950 has
occurred and has resulted in their being left in a triangular-shaped
area, bounded on all sides by roads.
Issue 7: One commenter clarified that, since 1995, under the Army's
environmental review procedures, projects have been modified in all
cases where it was necessary to protect the Chlorogalum purpureum var.
purpureum, not in just some cases, as the proposed rule described.
Our response: We are pleased to learn that, during the
environmental review process, projects have been modified in all cases
where needed to reduce impacts to this taxon. Our assessment is that
these modifications have not always been sufficient. The wording in
this final rule has been altered to reflect this determination. We also
recognize that some activities that threaten this plant, such as
bivouacking, are not addressed through the environmental review process
but cause substantial modification of habitat for Chlorogalum
purpureum, particularly in Training Area 25.
Issue 8: One commenter stated that Chlorogalum purpureum,
particularly var. reductum, should be listed as endangered, due to the
combined effects of livestock grazing and OHV trespass, which are
degrading a significant portion of this taxon's range.
Our response: Although Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum occupies
a very limited area, the taxon is abundant within that area. The
species is long-lived, and the threat of OHV trespass has been
partially addressed by the
[[Page 14882]]
USFS through fencing, although more rigorous monitoring and maintenance
of the barriers are needed. Transect data have shown that recruitment
is occurring in the transect area where numbers of C. p. var. reductum
have been relatively stable over the last 7 years (Borchert et al.
1997). The transect is in an area accessible to cattle, but is not in
an area where OHV trespass has continued to occur and cannot be
considered representative of the population. We have concluded that,
while not currently in danger of extinction, C. p. var. reductum is ``*
* * likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range'' (the definition of
``threatened'') if impacts from increasing OHV trespass, road use and
maintenance, livestock grazing, and potential displacement by nonnative
species continue or increase.
Issue 9: One commenter stated that the Service, in the proposed
rule, failed to address means, other than grazing, of reducing the
impacts of invasive nonnative species on Chlorogalum purpureum var.
reductum. The commenter also requested that the final rule include
measures the USFS will take to reduce vehicle trespass into the
population area.
Our response: We do not typically make management recommendations
in proposed or final rules. Therefore, in this rule we have not
included a discussion of methods to reduce the impacts of nonnative
plants on Chlorogalum purpureum populations or the measures by which
the USFS will address vehicle trespass. The latter will be addressed in
the consultation process under section 7 of the Act, and both issues
will be addressed through the recovery planning process after the
species is listed. In the proposed rule, we noted that previous reports
had suggested that C. purpureum might benefit from grazing if it
reduced the abundance of nonnative annual grasses that occur in the
population area and which may displace C. purpureum. These reports were
not based on monitoring data, as none is available that address the
effects of livestock on nonnative grasses at this site. In the proposed
rule, we did not advocate or oppose livestock grazing as a means to
reduce the effects of nonnative plants on C. purpureum; we believe
studies investigating the effects of livestock grazing on C. purpureum
are necessary should cattle continue to have access to the habitat of
this taxon on Federal lands.
Issue 10: One commenter stated that our argument for not
designating critical habitat was not well justified and that a
designation of critical habitat would provide additional benefit to
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum through the section 7 process.
Our response: We are deferring a critical habitat determination for
Chlorogalum purpureum in accordance with the Final Listing Priority
Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114). The Critical Habitat section in
this rule contains further discussion of this issue.
Issue 11: One commenter stated that we lack jurisdiction to enact
the proposed rule and that the rule should be withdrawn since there is
no connection between regulation of these plants and a substantial
effect on ``interstate commerce.''
Our response: Congress does have the authority pursuant to the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, to extend the regulatory
protection of the Act to species that occur in a single site, such as
the one in this final rule. A recent federal court case has upheld this
authority (National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F. 3d
1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997). cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1998).
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinions of three peer reviewers
regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions
relating to population status and biological and ecological information
for Chlorogalum purpureum. Two of the three peer reviewers provided
responses. Both respondents supported the listing of the species and
described the information included in the rule as factually correct to
the best of their knowledge. Both provided technical corrections. One
reviewer also provided additional detailed technical information and
references pertaining to threats to the species which the reviewer
suggested needed more thorough discussion than that provided in the
proposed rule.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and the regulations (50 CFR part 424) that
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to Chlorogalum purpureum Brandegee (purple amole) are as
follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is known only from three
localities on Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey County. The northern site
comprises discontinuous and fragmented patches over a 7 to 9-km (4 to
6-mi) area in the cantonment (housing and command center), several
training areas, the Ammunition Supply point, and near the Jolon
entrance gate. Habitat for C. p. var. purpureum has been destroyed, and
patches of plants have been isolated and fragmented by the historical
settlement of Jolon, roads, and the construction and use of training
facilities over the past several decades. In the last 50 years, a large
group of plants near the Jolon entrance gate was isolated by the
addition of a new road (aerial photos from Hines in litt. 1998).
Bounded on all sides by roads, this area was used as a vehicle parking
area in the 1980s. Representatives from Fort Hunter Liggett and the
Monterey Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
cooperated in constructing barriers to reduce impacts to the area
(Matthews and Branson 1988). Although the military has committed to
maintaining these protective barriers, this site remains vulnerable due
to its proximity to roads and isolation from surrounding patches of
plants. For example, in 1996 a vehicle mishap resulted in a large piece
of earth-moving machinery entering the site; its tracks through the
population were still evident in September 1997 (Painter and Neese
1998; D. Steeck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs. 1997).
In another portion of this northern locality, the Army recently
expanded training facilities (Hormann 1996). Since 1996, a new obstacle
course and two small parking areas have been placed in habitat occupied
by Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. Although the obstacles and
parking areas themselves were placed to avoid individual patches of
plants (Hormann 1996; Hines in litt. 1998), foot traffic and use of the
training facilities will likely degrade the habitat and eliminate a
portion of the population. In addition to the obstacle course and
parking areas, the Army has in the past 3 years constructed a
confidence course and upgraded a firing range along the stretch of dirt
road adjacent to the locality. The existence of some training
facilities made this area more attractive for additional construction
because the facilities could be located within walking distance of one
another (Hormann 1996). For the same reason, this area is likely to be
attractive for the siting of future training facilities,
[[Page 14883]]
although the Army recently stated that they do not intend to develop
the area further and are willing to enter into an agreement stating
this decision (Hines in litt. 1998).
The second locality is in Training Area 25, which is used for field
training maneuvers and is crossed by numerous dirt roads and tracks.
Field maneuvers at Fort Hunter Ligget involve setting up temporary
camps (bivouac sites), which may include excavations for latrines and
washing facilities, bunkers, and protective berms. Field maneuvers
routinely involve hundreds of troops and support staff as well as both
tracked and wheeled vehicles (U.S. Army Reserve Command 1996). Large
areas where substantial bivouacking occurred in 1997 were denuded, with
much of the herbaceous vegetation among the oaks destroyed (D. Steeck,
pers. obs. 1997). Vehicle tracks were evident throughout the site (D.
Steeck, pers. obs. 1997, 1998) and had been reported by other observers
(Painter and Neese 1998). Bivouacking typically occurs in these areas
in summer (U.S. Army Reserve Command 1996). Although soils are not as
susceptible to compaction at that time, fruiting stalks are destroyed
and the loss of vegetation may lead to erosion and consequent loss of
existing seeds and bulbs in the soil, as well as an increase in the
abundance of nonnative plants. Soil compaction may damage soil
mycorhizzae, and the loss of cryptobiotic crusts may hinder seedling
establishment of native species (Belnap 1994), thereby intensifying
displacement of native species by nonnative grasses. Cryptobiotic
crusts have been observed in at least one locality where Chlorogalum
purpureum var. purpureum is found (Painter in litt. 1998). Vehicle
tracks have also been reported in the third locality of C. p. var.
purpureum at the boundaries of Training Areas 23, 24, and 27 (Painter
and Neese 1998, J. Chesnut, in litt. 1998). In 1997, the vegetation of
this area appeared to be the least affected by training activities,
although military training the previous year had caused a spring fire
that burned the site and destroyed most of the year's seed crop
(Painter and Neese 1998).
The larger site of Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum, located on
LPNF and on private land, is estimated to occupy less than 8 ha (20 ac)
(maps in Borchert 1981, Gaskin 1990; Danielsen pers. comm. 1997). It
was likely once continuous, but is now divided by a two-lane highway.
The southern portion of the site, on public lands, is further bisected
by a dirt road that is currently about 10 m (33 ft) wide and runs the
length of the population. Although this road has existed for many
decades, grading during the past 5 years has widened it toward the
bounds of the pipe barrier fence that lines it, causing direct loss of
some individuals of C. p. var. reductum and additional habitat loss (D.
Magney, pers. comm. 1997). Because the roadbed is graded and highly
compacted, the loss of habitat due to the roadbed is relatively
permanent, barring extensive restoration efforts. Dust from use of the
road during late spring may impede pollination in those plants exposed
to it, and dust coating leaves can reduce photosynthetic abilities
(Farmer 1993).
In the 1970s and 1980s, most of the LPNF locality of Chlorogalum
purpureum var. reductum was used as a staging area by OHV enthusiasts
(McLeod 1987). An active 4-wheel drive route still exists near the
population (USFS 1993). A portion of the population was fenced in the
early 1980s by the CNPS with help from the USFS to protect it from OHV
use. In 1989 or 1990, due to continued OHV use in the area, the USFS
installed a pipe barrier on both sides of the dirt road that bisects
the population, to exclude vehicles from most of the population.
Vehicles repeatedly trespassed onto the site over the past 5 years
through broken fences leaving ruts or exposed tracks in the population
(K. Danielsen pers. comm. 1996; A. Koch, CDFG, in litt. 1997; D.
Steeck, pers. obs. 1997). In 1998, the USFS replaced a section of
barbed wire fence with a metal post and rewelded broken pipe barriers.
Continued monitoring and repairs will be needed to exclude vehicles. In
addition to causing injury or death of individual plants, vehicle
passes may destroy cryptobiotic soil crusts (Webb and Wilshire 1983),
damage soil mycorrhizae, and cause soil compaction, altering the soil's
water-holding capacity and interfering with the ability of roots to
penetrate the soil (Webb and Wilshire 1983). The existing scars of
older vehicle tracks in the population are probably partly the result
of soil compaction. Biologists attempting to establish seedlings of C.
p. var. reductum in old OHV tracks in the LPNF population found that
only 36 percent of the seeds planted in untreated tracks germinated and
survived through their first 1.5 years. Survival was 66 percent for
seeds planted in old tracks where the top 10 cm (4 in) of soil was
loosened prior to planting to reduce the effects of soil compaction.
Bulbs in unloosened soil of old tracks also had a lower survival rate
compared to those in loosened soil (Koch 1997). Other tests of
germination response suggest that seeds require burial for post-
germination survival and that uncompacted soils containing small
fissures and spaces around gravel components are likely essential to
successful seedling establishment (D. Wilken, in litt. 1998). Little
information is available on the portion of this population located on
private lands north of the highway.
The second site for Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum, located
solely on private lands, is reported to be extremely small (less than
0.1 ha (0.25 ac) with several hundred plants), compared to the
population managed by the USFS (8 ha). Because this taxon is so
narrowly distributed, the degradation of even an acre or two of the
occupied habitat in the LPNF population constitutes a significant
portion of this taxon's range.
Most localities of Chlorogalum purpureum are, or have been, subject
to cattle grazing. The negative effects of livestock use on oak
savannah habitat, where C. purpureum is most likely to occur, includes
soil compaction, soil disturbance that enhances the introduction or
spread of nonnative aggressive weedy species, direct crushing of the
above-ground portion of plants, and diminished seedling establishment
from trampling or from destruction of cryptobiotic crusts (Beymer and
Klopatek 1991). It has been suggested that light grazing in the habitat
of C. purpureum var. reductum may benefit C. p. var. reductum by
reducing competition from annual grasses (The Nature Conservancy 1987,
CDFG 1988). Others have noted, however, that any benefits of cattle use
in the area may be more than offset by loss of reproductive structures,
damage to seedlings, and habitat damage caused by livestock, since the
allotment is in use February through May, a critical season in the life
cycle of the purple amole (B. Painter in litt. 1998; J. Kuyper,
Environmental Defense Center, in litt. 1998). Cattle use is likely to
negatively affect the habitat of this species to the extent that cattle
actually use the portion of the allotment where the population is
located. Anecdotal observations in recent years suggest the cattle
spend more time in other areas of the allotment where water and more
forage is available (M. Fountain, pers. comm. 1998). However, cattle
impacts can vary from year-to-year through variation in the grazing,
congregating, or trailing patterns of the cattle without an increase in
the permitted level of forage utilization in the allotment. If cattle
have continued access to the population area, their effect on the
population on Federal lands must be monitored; the
[[Page 14884]]
allotment should be managed to prevent negative effects to this taxon.
Predation by cattle is discussed below under Factor C of this section.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
Overutilization is not currently known to be a factor affecting
this species.
C. Disease or predation.
Nearly every locality of Chlorogalum purpureum either is or has
been subject to cattle grazing. The potential negative effects of
livestock grazing (actual herbivory) on C. purpureum include the loss
of flowers, fruit, and leaves. Cattle have been recorded grazing a
substantial portion of the leaves of other, larger, Chlorogalum species
(Willoughby 1986). Leaves of C. p. var. purpureum are more likely than
those of C. p. var. reductum to be attractive to cattle, as the leaves
of the latter are narrow and only a couple of inches long. All three
localities of C. p. var. purpureum at Fort Hunter Liggett were in
grazing allotments prior to 1991. Documented overgrazing occurred from
1963 to 1977 at Fort Hunter Liggett, after which a study of grazing was
begun (Stechman 1995). During the grazing study, cattle stocking rates
continued to exceed the capacity of the habitats to support them,
especially when combined with the drought of the late 1980s and early
1990s (Stechman 1995). No specific information is available on the
condition of the localities of C. p. var. purpureum during the period
of overgrazing, as no basewide surveys for sensitive plant species had
been conducted and the status of populations was not tracked. Grazing
on Fort Hunter Liggett stopped in 1991, following an extended drought
and poor range condition (Stechman 1995), but is scheduled to be
resumed in the future, although no date has been set. If the
recommendations in the grazing assessment are followed, cattle grazing
leases would include most of the extended northern locality of this
taxon and all of the second locality in Training Area 25. Only the
southernmost locality, at the boundaries of Training Areas 23, 24, and
27, would be completely excluded from cattle use (Stechman 1995).
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum is within an active grazing
allotment on the LPNF that cattle use from February through May (USFS
1997). The permitted level of use of the allotment by livestock is
moderate (USFS 1997). In 1986 livestock use became a problem when
cattle congregated within the population behind a fence built to block
vehicle access (The Nature Conservancy 1987). A pipe barrier with low
sections was later installed to permit cattle movement over the
barriers. Because the period of cattle use coincides with growth and
flowering of C. p. var. reductum, it is likely that reproduction would
be negatively affected if cattle congregated on the plateau within the
locality containing the population. In 1995 and 1996, cattle appeared
to have spent little time on the plateau (A. Koch, pers. comm. 1997a).
In 1997, fecal evidence suggested that cattle spent relatively more
time within the site (D. Steeck, pers. obs. 1997; A. Koch, pers. comm.
1997b). Although current monitoring data are insufficient to evaluate
the use of the allotment on C. p. var. reductum, grazing has the
potential to negatively affect reproduction and survival (through loss
of inflorescences and photosynthetic tissue), and may exacerbate damage
already caused by vehicles or other human activities. We consider the
inclusion of the population in an active grazing allotment a potential
threat that should be assessed.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (Div. 2, chapter 10
sec. 1900 et seq. of the California Department of Fish and Game Code)
and the California Endangered Species Act (Div. 3, chapter 1.5 sec.
2050 et seq.), the California Fish and Game Commission listed
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum as rare in 1978. 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. As applied to State-listed plant species,
however, these requirements have not been tested; their effectiveness
cannot be evaluated for several years.
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum occurs primarily on Federal
lands managed by the LPNF and on private lands. State listing provides
no consultation or other requirements for protection on Federal lands,
although it is USFS policy to work with the State in the conservation
of such taxa. The management of sensitive resources on the LPNF is
guided by various policies and regulations, including the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-109, 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1600 et seq.), and the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Los
Padres National Forest (USFS 1988).
The NEPA requires that the USFS disclose and consider potential
environmental impacts of a proposed project. Under new regulations, 10-
year grazing permits are subject to the NEPA process, and the NEPA
process is under way for the grazing allotment where Chlorogalum
purpureum var. reductum occurs (USFS 1997). Although NEPA requires
disclosure of potential effects of Federal actions and allows for
comment by agencies and the public, it does not, of itself, provide
additional protection.
The Land and Resource Management Plan for LPNF (USFS 1988) directs
the USFS to ensure the viability of sensitive plant species and to
emphasize the improvement and protection of habitat for sensitive
species in their management activities. These regulations appear to be
adequate, but their implementation by the USFS has not been consistent.
Unless the barriers around portions of the population are regularly
monitored and maintained, illegal trespass by vehicles into the habitat
of Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum is likely to continue. To date,
the USFS has not adequately monitored vehicle trespass, repaired
fencing, bolstered barriers in a timely manner, or adequately evaluated
the effects of permitted livestock use on the population on LPNF (D.
Steeck, pers. obs. 1998).
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum occurs solely on Federal lands
managed by Fort Hunter Liggett. The Department of Defense has various
policies and directives to guide the management of sensitive natural
resources. Army Regulation 200-3 provides for environmental review of
projects that might affect sensitive and listed species. Fort Hunter
Liggett has had an environmental review process since 1994, and C. p.
var. purpureum is included in this process. According to the Army at
Fort Hunter Liggett (D. Hines in litt. 1998), all projects are modified
to reduce impacts to this taxon if impacts are predicted to occur. For
example, a planned bayonet course was relocated to avoid placing it
within or directly adjacent to patches of C. p. var. purpureum. In
other cases, such as with the recent construction of the obstacle
course and parking areas in occupied habitat, project modifications
have been insufficient, and projects continue to be sited in occupied
habitat and continue to affect this taxon. In addition, environmental
review only occurs for projects that require excavation; bivouacking
and vehicle impacts are not covered by this process. The environmental
review process does not
[[Page 14885]]
always allow for assessment surveys to be conducted at the time of year
when the plant can be identified (H. Hormann, in litt. 1997). For
example, surveys for the proposed bayonet course occurred in late
summer 1997, when the above-ground portions of the plants were dry and
difficult to locate.
Under Army Regulation 200-3, a Species Management Plan for
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and other sensitive species on the
base has been developed (Hazebrook and Clark 1997). While some of the
goals will benefit C. p. var. purpureum if achieved, the actual
protection the plan affords is minimal and based primarily on avoiding
impacts to populations ``when feasible.'' To date, no areas where C. p.
var. purpureum occurs on the base are off-limits to training. We
conclude that Army directives, while improving the consideration that
this taxon receives on the base, have not yet altered activities to
sufficiently reduce the threats posed by military activities.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Other factors affecting individuals of Chlorogalum purpureum var.
purpureum include military training, changes in fire frequency, and the
invasion of this taxon's habitat by nonnative plant species. Training
activities that involve trampling, camping, or driving through occupied
habitat can directly crush flowers, fruits, and vegetative parts of C.
p. var. purpureum and result in diminished reproductive success, lower
seedling establishment, and reduced plant vigor. At Fort Hunter
Liggett, training activities increase in the spring, around April, and
peak in the summer (U.S. Dept. of Army 1997), a period that coincides
with flowering and fruiting of the taxon. Military field training
activities can reduce seedling establishment by direct crushing and by
altering soil bulk density and water-holding capacity. Training
activities lead to soil compaction and soil disturbance, which also
encourages the invasion of weedy, nonnative plant species that may
compete directly with C. p. var. purpureum. Habitat alterations due to
training activities are further discussed under Factor A.
The oak savannah and grassland habitats in which Chlorogalum
purpureum occurs have been invaded by nonnative annual plants such as
wild oats (Avena sp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), red brome
(Bromus madritensis var. rubens), schismus (Schismus barbatus), and
filaree (Erodium sp.) (Borchert 1981; Magney 1988; Painter and Neese
1998). Hoover (1970) noted that C. p. var. reductum grew higher under
oaks where the soil was looser with greater humus content; others have
noted since then that C. p. var. reductum is not found where annual
nonnative grasses are dense (Borchert 1981, Painter in litt. 1998),
which tends to be under oaks at the site on USFS land (D. Steeck, pers.
obs. 1998). It may be that C. p. var. reductum has been displaced by
nonnative grasses in these areas, restricting C. p. var. reductum to
the patches of gravelly soils where nonnative grasses are stunted or
sparse. Increasing invasion by nonnative annual grasses has been
implicated in loss of habitat for other rare geophytes (e.g.,
Rosentreter 1994). Cryptobiotic crusts that form on the soil surface
have been shown to enhance seedling establishment in some native taxa
(Belnap 1994), and the displacement of crusts may enhance invasion by
nonnative species. These soil crusts are found in at least some
populations of C. purpureum (Painter and Neese 1998; B. Painter in
litt. 1998). Scraping or other activity that disturbs the soil surface
has been noted in one instance at Fort Hunter Liggett to result in at
least temporary high abundance of nonnative annual grasses (Painter and
Neese1998). The rapid, dense growth of nonnative annual grasses may
also act as an abundant, rapidly replenished fuel source leading to
more frequent range fires as has been documented in other areas (Wright
1985) or the need for more frequent prescribed burns to reduce the
potential of uncontrolled range fires (J. Chesnut, consulting
biologist, in litt. 1998).
Burning too frequently or during seasons of growth and reproduction
may threaten Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum at Fort Hunter
Liggett. A spring burn swept through the southernmost locality on Fort
Hunter Liggett in 1995. Botanists conducting a post-fire survey
reported that all observed fruiting inflorescences were either damaged
or destroyed, and they concluded that the seed crop was mostly, if not
completely, destroyed (Painter and Neese 1998). The fire occurred in
May, rather than summer or early fall, when most seeds would have been
dispersed (Painter and Neese 1998). Burning too frequently may damage a
population due to the slow growth rate of seedlings. Estimates of time
needed for C. purpureum to reach reproductive maturity in the wild
range from 5 to 15 years (Judy Jernstedt, University of California at
Davis, in litt. 1998; M. Elvin, pers. comm. 1998). In addition,
immature plants with small bulbs located near the soil surface may be
particularly vulnerable to fires. The fire did appear to stimulate an
increase in the number of plants flowering the following year (Painter
and Neese 1998).
In developing this final rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by this species. Based on this
evaluation, the preferred action is to list the species as threatened.
This species is particularly vulnerable due to the restricted range it
occupies. Threats to the species are vehicle trespass on USFS lands,
military activities due to the species' location in active training
areas and in the housing and administration area of an Army base, road
use and maintenance, displacement by nonnative plant species, and
livestock grazing. Because the Army's environmental directives are
increasing the consideration afforded to this and other rare plant
species on Fort Hunter Liggett and because the USFS has implemented
some management actions for this species, we determine that threatened
status is currently appropriate. The species is not currently in danger
of extinction, but is likely to become so if substantial use of its
habitat for military training activities continues and if OHV
activities or livestock impacts increase in the population area on USFS
lands.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species
is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) the
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
[[Page 14886]]
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114)
states, the processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency and
determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of
critical habitat will no longer be subject to prioritization under the
Listing Priority Guidance. Critical habitat determinations, which were
previously included in final listing rules published in the Federal
Register, may now be processed separately, in which case stand-alone
critical habitat determinations will be published as notices in the
Federal Register. We will undertake critical habitat determinations and
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for
that year. As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, our
listing budget is currently insufficient to allow us to immediately
complete all of the listing actions required by the Act. Deferral of
the critical habitat designation for Chlorogalum purpureum will allow
us to concentrate our limited resources on higher priority critical
habitat and other listing actions, while allowing us to put in place
protections needed for the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum
without further delay.
We propose that critical habitat is prudent for Chlorogalum
purpureum. In the last few years, a series of court decisions have
overturned Service determinations regarding a variety of species that
designation of critical habitat would not be prudent (e.g., Natural
Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d
1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F.
Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in
those judicial opinions, we believe that designation of critical
habitat would be prudent for Chlorogalum purpureum.
In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case of this
species, there may be some benefits to designation of critical habitat.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7
requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this species
would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome
because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical
habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species,
there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered
only if critical habitat is designated. Examples could include
unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in
the future. There may also be some educational or informational
benefits to designating critical habitat. Therefore, we find that
critical habitat is prudent for Chlorogalum purpureum.
We plan to employ a priority system for deciding which outstanding
critical habitat designations should be addressed first. We will focus
our efforts on those designations that will provide the most
conservation benefit, taking into consideration the efficacy of
critical habitat designation in addressing the threats to the species,
and the magnitude and immediacy of those threats. We will develop a
proposal to designate critical habitat for the Chlorogalum purpureum as
soon as feasible, considering our workload priorities.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages and
results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible
land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that
recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection
required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain
activities involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat, if any is designated. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with us.
Although this final rule lists Chlorogalum purpureum at the
specific level, we intend through the recovery planning process to
designate each of the varieties as a separate recovery unit for
purposes of section 7 consultation and the recovery process. In other
words, the jeopardy standard would be applied to either C. p. var.
purpureum or C. p. var. reductum as separately identified recovery
units, in accordance with our Endangered Species Consultation Handbook.
Federal agencies that may affect the species proposed in this rule
through activities they fund, authorize, or carry out are the USFS (at
Los Padres National Forest), the Department of the Army (at Fort Hunter
Liggett) and, to a much smaller extent, the Federal Highway
Administration through funds provided for State highway construction or
maintenance.
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum occurs wholly on Federal lands
managed by the Department of the Army. Activities the Army funds,
authorizes, or carries out that could affect this taxon include, but
are not limited to, construction and use of training facilities, field
training exercises, road construction and maintenance, prescribed
burning, fire suppression activities, livestock grazing, and hunting.
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum occurs primarily on public
lands managed by the USFS on Los Padres National Forest. Activities
that the USFS funds, authorizes, or carries out that could affect this
taxon include livestock grazing, OHV activities, road maintenance, fire
suppression activities, and special use permits authorizing use and the
development of management plans for special use areas.
Listing Chlorogalum purpureum as threatened will provide for the
development of a recovery plan. The plan will bring together Federal,
State, and local efforts for the plant's conservation, establishing a
framework for cooperation and coordination. The plan will set recovery
priorities and describe site-specific management actions necessary to
achieve the conservation of the species. Additionally, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, we will be more likely to grant
[[Page 14887]]
funds to the State for management actions promoting the protection and
recovery of the species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered or
threatened plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act
implemented by 50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants apply. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and
reduce the species to possession any such species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the
Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under
Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging
or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, or in the course of violation of State criminal trespass
law. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the provision of such
protection to threatened species through regulation. This protection
may apply to this species in the future if regulations are promulgated.
Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plants are exempt from
these prohibitions provided that their containers are marked ``Of
Cultivated Origin.'' Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also provide for the
issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened plant species under certain
circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. For threatened
plants, permits are also available for botanical or horticultural
exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with
the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated that few trade permits would
ever be sought or issued because this species is not in cultivation or
common in the wild. Information collections associated with these
permits are approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget clearance number
1018-0094. For additional information concerning these permits and
associated requirements, see 50 CFR 17.72.
Requests for copies of the regulations on listed species and
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone: 503/231-2063;
facsimile: 503/231-6243).
It is our policy, published in the Federal Register (59 FR 34272)
on July 1, 1994, to identify to the maximum extent practicable those
activities that would or would not be likely to constitute a violation
of section 9 of the Act if a species is listed. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the species'
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within its range. Collection
of listed plants are prohibited without a Federal endangered species
permit. We are unaware of any activities on non-Federal lands that
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of
the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining our reasons for
this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An
information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for
endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned
clearance number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning
permits and associated requirements for threatened plants, see 50 CFR
17.32.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author:
The primary author of this final rule is Diane Steeck, Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulations Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend section 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Chlorogalum purpureum............ Purple amole........ U.S.A. (CA)........ Liliaceae--Lily.... T 689 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14888]]
Dated: March 14, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-6836 Filed 3-15-00; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P