40954 federal register /vol. 62, no. 147/thursday, july 31 ... · 40954 federal register/vol. 62,...

40954 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Pub. L. 100–17 and sec. 1048, Pub. L. 102–240); 49 CFR 1.51.

2. Section 661.11 is amended byadding Appendices A, B and C to readas follows:

§ 661.11 Rolling stock procurements.

* * * * *

Appendix A to § 661.11—GeneralWaivers

(a) The provisions of § 661.11 of thispart do not apply when foreign sourcedspare parts for buses and other rollingstock (including train control,communication, and traction powerequipment) whose total cost is 10percent or less of the overall projectcontract cost are being procured as partof the same contract for the majorcapital item.

(b) [Reserved]

Appendix B to § 661.11—TypicalComponents of Buses

The following is a list of items thattypically would be consideredcomponents of a bus. This list is not all-inclusive.

Engines, transmissions, front axleassemblies, rear axle assemblies, drive shaftassemblies, front suspension assemblies, rearsuspension assemblies, air compressor andpneumatic systems, generator/alternator andelectrical systems, steering systemassemblies, front and rear air brakeassemblies, air conditioning compressorassemblies, air conditioning evaporator/condenser assemblies, heating systems.passenger seats, driver’s seat assemblies,window assemblies, entrance and exit doorassemblies, door control systems, destinationsign assemblies, interior lighting assemblies,front and rear end cap assemblies, front andrear bumper assemblies, specialty steel(structural steel tubing, etc.) aluminumextrusions, aluminum, steel or fiberglassexterior panels, and interior trim, flooring,and floor coverings.

Appendix C to § 661.11—TypicalComponents of Rail Rolling Stock

The following is a list of items thattypically would be consideredcomponents of rail rolling stock. Thislist is not all inclusive.

Car shells, main transformer, pantographs,traction motors, propulsion gear boxes,interior linings, acceleration and brakingresistors, propulsion controls, low voltageauxiliary power supplies, air conditioningequipment, air brake compressors, brakecontrols, foundation brake equipment,articulation assemblies, train control systems,window assemblies, communicationequipment, lighting, seating, doors, dooractuators, and controls, couplers and draftgear, trucks, journal bearings, axles,diagnostic equipment, and third rail pick-upequipment.

Issued On:July 25, 1997.Gordon J. Linton,Administrator.[FR Doc. 97–20109 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD39

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Final Rule for 13 PlantTaxa From the Northern ChannelIslands, California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) determinesendangered status for Arabis hoffmannii(Hoffmann’s rock-cress), Arctostaphylosconfertiflora (Santa Rosa Islandmanzanita), Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis (island barberry), Castillejamollis (soft-leaved paintbrush), Galiumbuxifolium (island bedstraw), Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii (Hoffmann’sslender-flowered gilia), Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus (Santa CruzIsland bushmallow), Malacothrixindecora (Santa Cruz Islandmalacothrix), Malacothrix squalida(island malacothrix), Phacelia insularisssp. insularis (island phacelia), andThysanocarpus conchuliferus (SantaCruz Island fringepod) and threatenedstatus for Dudleya nesiotica (Santa CruzIsland dudleya) and Helianthemumgreenei (island rush-rose) pursuant tothe Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act). The 13 plant taxa fromthe northern Channel Islands, Californiaand their habitats have been variouslyaffected or are currently threatened byone or more of the following: soil loss;habitat alteration by mammals alien tothe Channel Islands (pigs, goats, sheep,donkeys, cattle, deer, elk, bison); directpredation by these same alien mammals;habitat alteration by native seabirds;habitat alteration due to vehiculartraffic; overcollection for scientific orrecreational purposes; competition withalien plant taxa; reduced geneticviability; depressed reproductive vigor;and the chance of random extinctionresulting from small numbers ofindividuals and populations. A notice ofwithdrawal of the proposal to listDudleya blochmaniae ssp. insularis(Santa Rosa Island dudleya), Dudleyasp. nov. ‘‘East Point’’ (munchkindudleya), and Heuchera maxima (Island

alum-root) which were proposed (July25, 1995, 60 FR 37993) for listing alongwith the 13 taxa considered in this rule,is published concurrently with this finalrule.DATES: This rule becomes effectiveSeptember 2, 1997.ADDRESSES: The complete file for thisrule is available for inspection byappointment during normal businesshours at the Ventura Field Office, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 PortolaRoad, Suite B, Ventura, California93003.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TimThomas or Connie Rutherford,Botanists, Ventura Field Office (seeADDRESSES section) (telephone number805/644–1766; facsimile 805/644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundArabis hoffmannii (Hoffmann’s rock-

cress), Arctostaphylos confertiflora(Santa Rosa Island manzanita), Berberispinnata ssp. insularis (island barberry),Castilleja mollis (soft-leavedpaintbrush), Dudleya nesiotica (SantaCruz Island dudleya), Galiumbuxifolium (island bedstraw), Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii (Hoffmann’sslender-flowered gilia), Helianthemumgreenei (island rush-rose),Malacothamnus fasciculatus ssp.nesioticus (Santa Cruz Islandbushmallow), Malacothrix indecora(island malacothrix), Malacothrixsqualida (Santa Cruz Islandmalacothrix), Phacelia insularis ssp.insularis (island phacelia), andThysanocarpus conchuliferus (SantaCruz Island fringepod) are CaliforniaChannel Island endemics. The onlyspecies in this group that is notrestricted to the four northern islands(Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, andSan Miguel) is the island rush-rose, withone population known from SantaCatalina Island.

Located offshore and south of SantaBarbara County, the four northernislands are the highest points on a 130kilometer (km) (80 mile (mi)) longseamount (Dibblee 1982). They areincluded within the boundaries of theChannel Islands National Park (CINP).Anacapa Island is the smallest of thefour northern islands and includes threesmaller islands referred to as East,Middle, and West Anacapa, that total2.9 square (sq) km (1.1 sq mi); it is theclosest island to the mainland at adistance of 20 km (13 mi). East andMiddle Anacapa islands are flat-topped,wave-cut terraces largely surrounded bysteep cliffs. West Anacapa is the highestof the three, reaching 283 meters (m)(930 feet (ft)) above sea level. Santa Cruz

40955Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Island is the largest of the CaliforniaChannel Islands at 249 sq km (96 sq mi)with the highest point being 753 m(2,470 ft) above sea level. Santa RosaIsland is 217 sq km (84 sq mi) in areaand 475 m (1,560 ft) at its highest point.San Miguel Island, the westernmost ofthe northern group, is 37 sq km (14 sqmi) in area and 253 m (830 ft) in height.Santa Catalina Island, on which onepopulation of Helianthemum greeneioccurs, lies about 113 km (70 mi) to thesoutheast of the northern island group;it is 194 sq km (75 sq mi) in area andits highest elevation is 648 m (2,125 ft)(Power 1980).

The northern Channel Islands aremanaged primarily by Federal agencies.Anacapa Island is managed by theNational Park Service (NPS) with aninholding for the U.S. Coast Guardlighthouse. The western 90 percent ofSanta Cruz Island is privately ownedand managed by The NatureConservancy (TNC). The remaining 10percent of the island is Federal landmanaged by the NPS. Santa Rosa Islandis managed by the NPS. San MiguelIsland is under the jurisdiction of theU.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), butthe NPS has operational jurisdictionthrough a Memorandum of Agreement.Except for the City of Avalon, SantaCatalina Island is privately owned andmanaged by the Catalina IslandConservancy.

Anacapa was set aside (with SantaBarbara Island to the south) as aNational Monument in 1938. In 1980,the U.S. Congress abolished theNational Monument and incorporatedits lands, waters and interests intoNational Park status, adding Santa CruzIsland and Santa Rosa Island (at thattime privately owned) within theboundaries. The NPS acquisition ofSanta Rosa Island in 1986 wasaccomplished by outright fee purchasefrom the Vail and Vickers RanchingCompany. A cattle ranching operationand a subleased commercial deer andelk hunting operation on Santa RosaIsland are operating under 5-yearrenewable special use permits,renewable until the year 2011.

TNC acquired an easement for 4,800hectares (ha) (12,000 acres (ac)) of SantaCruz Island in 1978 and took ownershipof nine-tenths of the island in 1987.TNC’s general goals for preservemanagement include the preservation,protection, restoration, andunderstanding of the natural resources(Rob Klinger, TNC, Santa Cruz Island,pers. comm. 1994). Although a specificmanagement plan for the Santa CruzIsland Preserve has not been developed,TNC has developed a strategic directionthat will focus on managing feral pigs

(Sus scrofa), fennel (Foeniculumvulgare), and fire. These activitiesinclude long-term monitoring of specificplant communities and rare plantpopulations; trial programs in feral pigremoval, herbicide treatment of alienplant species, controlled burns ingrassland and island pine communities;and research on specific species and theresponse of plant communities toremoval of non-native mammals. A 5-year trial feral pig removal program wassuccessful in removing all but a few pigsfrom a 2,400-ha (6,000-ac) exclosure onthe south side of the island. The numberof pigs fluctuates depending onprecipitation and acorn crop. TNC alsotook immediate steps to remove cattle(Bos taurus) and sheep (Ovisdomesticus) upon acquiring theproperty, but has been unable to managethe rapid spread of the alien plant,fennel, that resulted from the release ofgrazing pressure. TNC is exploringoptions for implementing island-wideferal pig removal and other managementactivities; these options may includedeveloping an agreement with NPS forthat agency to manage the island. Pignumbers are increasing on Santa CruzIsland (E. Painter in litt. 1997).

Subsequent to the relocation bymissionaries of the native ChumashIndian populations from the islands tothe mainland by 1814 (Hobbs 1983),land use practices on the islandsfocused on the introduction of a varietyof livestock including sheep, goats(Capra hircus), cattle, pigs, burros(Equus asinus), and horses (E. caballus).Other alien mammal species were alsointroduced, including deer (Odocoiliushemionus), elk (Cervus canadensisroosevelti), bison (Bison bison), rabbits(Oryctolagus cuniculus), wild turkey(Melegris gallopavo), California quail(Callipepla californica), and chukar(Alectoris chuckar) for ranching andhunting purposes (Hochberg et al.1980a, Minnich 1980, Jones et al. 1989).

The introduction of alien herbivoresto the islands has had catastrophiceffects on island vegetation. Pigs hadbeen released on Santa Cruz Island by1854 (Hobbs 1983). Records for SantaCruz Island indicate that sheep hadbeen introduced in the early 1830’s; by1875, sheep stocking was around 50,000head (Hobbs 1983). In 1890, perhaps asmany as 100,000 sheep grazed on SantaCruz Island (Hochberg et al. 1980a).Droughts, exacerbated by overgrazing,occurred in 1864, 1870–72, 1877, 1893–1904, 1923–24, 1935, 1946–48, 1964,(Dunkle 1950, Johnson 1980) and mostrecently 1986–91 (Halvorson 1993).These episodes resulted in losses oflivestock and other herbivores due tostarvation (Johnson 1980, Sauer 1988).

Manipulation of the vegetation by over150 years of intensive grazing andbrowsing has resulted in thereplacement of native plantcommunities with non-native grasslands(Minnich 1980, Hobbs 1983).

Several alien weedy plants haveinvaded the disturbed habitats of theislands. One of the most obviousproblem species is fennel on Santa CruzIsland. Fennel and other aggressive non-native weed species displace nativespecies and further threaten theecological integrity of the islandecosystems (Smith 1989, Simberloff1990). Research methods and results todate for the control of fennel were thetopics of several presentations at thefourth Channel Islands symposium(Brenton and Klinger 1994, Dash andGliessman 1994, Gliessman 1994).

Some progress has been made towardeliminating alien animals from theislands. TNC has eliminated the cattleand sheep from the western portion ofSanta Cruz Island, and continues toprevent sheep from invading from theeastern portion of the island (Kelley1997). The NPS purchased the east endof the Santa Cruz Island in February1997 and initiated a sheep controlprogram. The NPS has removed all thepigs from Santa Rosa Island. A programto control goats and pigs is beingimplemented on western Santa CatalinaIsland. However, no action has beentaken to eliminate deer and elk fromSanta Rosa Island, or pigs from themajority of Santa Cruz Island, or bisonwhich have been introduced to SantaCatalina Island.

The floristics of the islands arecomposed of elements that have avariety of origins, and include relictpopulations of formerly wider-rangingspecies such as the endemic islandironwoods (Lyonothamnus floribundus)and disjunct species such as the Torreypine (Pinus torreyana). Such speciestypically occur in canyons and onslopes with more moderateenvironments than those that prevail insurrounding areas. Island endemics,including all of the species in this finalrule, have been discussed by Raven(1967), Philbrick (1980), and Wallace(1985). Fifty-four island endemic plantspecies are known from the northernChannel Islands; 15 species are singleisland endemics (Halvorson et al. 1987).Some of the most striking examples ofextinction have occurred from islandsaround the world; from the ChannelIslands, notable extinctions include theSanta Barbara Island song sparrow(Melospiza melodia cooperi) and SantaCruz Island monkeyflower (Mimulusbrandegei). Nine plant species havebeen extirpated from various islands


within the northern island group: threefrom Santa Cruz (Malacothrix incana,Mimulus brandegei, and Sibara filifolia),two from Santa Rosa (Berberis pinnatassp. insularis, and Helianthemumgreenei), and four from San Miguel(Grindelia latifolia, Ceanothusmegacarpus ssp. insularis, Rhamnuspirifolia, and Ericameria ericoides)(Philbrick 1980, Halvorson et al. 1987,Clark et al. 1990).

The main habitat types on the islandsinclude coastal dune, coastal bluff,coastal sage scrub, grasslands, chaparral,oak and ironwood woodlands, riparianwoodlands, and conifer forest; varioussubdivisions of these types have beendescribed by Dunkle (1950), Philbrickand Haller (1977), Minnich (1980), Clarket al. (1990), and Coonan et al. (1996).Coastal beach and associated dunehabitats occur in the windiest sandylocations on the three westernmostislands. These coastal habitats appear tobe relatively undisturbed compared tomainland sites where development andrecreation have largely eliminated them.Coastal bluff habitat has provided arefugium for many plants from grazingby non-native animals (Minnich 1980,Halvorson et al. 1992).

The upland habitats were formerlymostly shrub-dominated and includedcoastal sage scrub and chaparralhabitats. Historic reports indicate thatthese brushlands were impenetrable(Hochberg et al. 1980a). Historicalphotographs reveal a significant loss ofwoody vegetation from the islandsduring the last 100 years (Hobbs 1980,Minnich 1980). Coastal sage habitat iscomposed of soft-leaved, soft-stemmedplants that are easily broken bytrampling and palatable to bothbrowsers and grazers. The originalcoastal sage scrub habitat has beenreduced by overgrazing to the extentthat it persists only in locationsinaccessible to grazing and browsinganimals, such as bluffs and marginalhabitat in patches of cactus (Minnich1980, Hobbs 1983, Painter in litt. 1997).Coastal sage scrub habitat has increasedin importance on Anacapa and SanMiguel Islands where grazing has beenremoved (Johnson 1980).

The structure of the remnantchaparral habitats has also beenmodified by grazing and browsing, such

that shrubs form arborescent (treelike)shapes or extremely low, prostrateforms. Continued browsing by deer andelk on Santa Rosa Island has created anopen ‘skeleton’ community reticulatedby game trails that provide access tonearly 100 percent of the habitat(Hochberg et al. 1980a; Tim Thomas,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), pers. obs., 1993).

Grasslands are largely composed ofnon-native annual species and havegreatly expanded at the expense of mostother habitat types (Hobbs 1983, Coleand Liu 1994). The pre-grazingimportance of cactus in the islandcommunities will never be known.Overgrazing has resulted in the spreadof cactus to areas denuded by livestock.Overgrazing on Santa Cruz Islandfacilitated the spread of cactus to thepoint that over 40 percent of therangeland was rendered useless(Hochberg et al. 1980a). Cactus habitatson Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islandshave been dramatically reduced toimprove cattle operations by theintroduction of biological controls(Hochberg et al. 1980a).

Island woodlands are dominated byunique endemic species and have alsobeen heavily affected by grazing,browsing, and rooting animals seekingsummer shelter and food (Clark et al.1990, Halvorson 1993). Riparianwoodlands are heavily modifiedphysically and structurally, and in someareas they have been completelyeliminated (Hochberg et al. 1980a,Minnich 1980). Normally, a canyonwith year-round water will have well-developed riparian vegetation thatincludes willows (Salix spp.),sycamores (Platanus racemosa),cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and oaks(Quercus spp.). This vegetation wouldtypically support a rich diversity oforganisms, especially neo-tropicalmigratory bird species, but years ofoverutilization by introduced mammalshave considerably reduced this formerlyresource-rich habitat.

The bishop pine forests that areprotected from grazing have well-developed foliar cover and pinereproduction (Hobbs 1978). In contrast,Clark et al. (1990) reported that bishoppine forests that are subjected to grazinglack the protective nutrient layer of

ground litter and exhibit noreproduction.

Pigs, cattle, deer, elk, goats, sheep,and bison continue to threaten andfurther degrade whole ecosystems onthe islands (Sauer 1988, Halvorson1993). Many of the taxa in this rulesurvive only in areas that areinaccessible to the alien ungulates andthen only on sites that are marginallysuitable making their persistencetenuous (Painter in litt. 1997).

Discussion of the Taxa Included in ThisRule

The current and historic distributionof the taxa included in this rule areshown in Table 1. Seven of these taxaare known only from one island,although two of these have beenextirpated from other islands on whichthey occurred historically. Theremaining six taxa currently occur ononly two islands, although two of thesesix have been extirpated from a thirdisland from which they were knownhistorically. All but 3 of the 13 taxa areknown from five or fewer populations.

Arabis hoffmannii (Hoffmann’s rock-cress) was described by PhilipAlexander Munz as Arabis maxima var.hoffmannii in 1932 based on specimenscollected by Ralph Hoffmann at the ‘‘seacliffs east of Dick’s Harbor,’’ now knownas Platts Harbor, on Santa Cruz Island in1932 (Rollins 1936). T.S. Brandegee hadcollected this rock-cress as early as 1888from an unspecified location on SantaCruz Island. In 1936, Reed Clark Rollinselevated the taxon to species status bypublishing the name Arabis hoffmannii.This nomenclature was retained in themost recent treatment of the genus(Rollins 1993).

Arabis hoffmannii is a slender,herbaceous, monocarpic (flowering oncethen dying) perennial in the mustard(Brassicaceae) family. The one to severalstems reach 0.6 m (2.0 ft) high, and haveslightly toothed basal leaves. The whiteto lavender flowers, comprised of fourpetals 1 centimeter (cm) (0.4 inch (in))long, are found at the tips of the stems.The slightly curved fruits are borne onlong stalks (siliques). The only otherrock-cress that occurs on the islands,Arabis glabra var. glabra, is a tallerplant with cream-colored flowers.

TABLE 1

Scientific name Growth form Number ofpopulations

Distribution

mA wA CR RO MI CA

Arabis hoffmannii ................................. Perennial ................. 4 h x xArctostaphylos confertiflora ................. Shrub ...................... <10 xBerberis pinnata ssp. insularis ............ Shrub or vine .......... 3 h x h


TABLE 1—Continued

Scientific name Growth form Number ofpopulations

Distribution

mA wA CR RO MI CA

Castilleja mollis .................................... Perennial ................. 2 x hDudleya nesiotica ................................ Succulent ................ 1 xGalium buxifolium ................................ Sub-shrub ............... 10 x xGilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii ............ Annual ..................... 3 xHelianthemum greenei ......................... Sub-shrub ............... 14 x h xMalacothamnus fasciculatus ssp.

nesioticus.Shrub ...................... 2 x

Malacothrix indecora ............................ Annual ..................... 2 x x hMalacothrix squalida ............................ Annual ..................... (3) x x xPhacelia insularis ssp. insularis ........... Annual ..................... 1(5) x xThysanocarpus conchuliferus .............. Annual ..................... (8) x

NOTE.—Growth form, estimated number of populations within the past five or ten (in parentheses) years, and distribution (x) of the thirteenplant taxa; mA=middle Anacapa, wA=west Anacapa, CR=Santa Cruz, RO=Santa Rosa, MI=San Miguel, CA=Santa Catalina, h=historic distribu-tion.

Since Brandegee’s collection wasmade in 1888, few collections of Arabishoffmannii have been made. On SantaCruz Island, Moran made a collectionfrom the ‘‘Central Valley’’ in 1950, andMcPherson collected the plant nearCentinela Grade, possibly the samelocation, in 1967 (Steve Junak, pers.comm. 1993). It was not until 1985 thatSteve Junak relocated a population atthis location (Schuyler 1986). For manydecades, Hoffmann’s original collectionsite, near Platts Harbor on Santa CruzIsland, was in ‘‘an area of intense feralanimal (sheep) disturbance,’’ and noplants could be found (Hochberg et al.1980a). In fact, in 1983, the Servicepublished in the Federal Register (48FR 53640) a notice of review thatconsidered this species to be extinct.However, surveys conducted by TNC in1985 were successful in relocating theplant near Platts Harbor (Schuyler1986).

According to Moran’s field notes, hecollected Arabis hoffmannii fromAnacapa Island in 1941 ‘‘on the slopesabove Frenchy’s Cove’’ (S. Junak, pers.comm. 1993). However, no specimensfrom this collection have been found inherbaria with known collections ofisland species, and recent surveys havefailed to relocate the plant on AnacapaIsland (S. Junak, pers. comm. 1993).Hoffmann reported the plant from ‘‘thebank above Water Canyon’’ on SantaRosa Island in 1930, but numerousrecent surveys have failed to locate anyplants from that location (S. Junak, pers.comm. 1993). In 1996, a new populationof the plant was discovered near themouth of Lobo Canyon on Santa RosaIsland (McEachern 1996, Wilken 1996).The population consists of eight plants,three of which were flowering and theremaining five were vegetative rosettes.The plants are located on a rocky shelfoverhanging the canyon, and are

associated with giant coreopsis(Coreopsis gigantea), Greene’s dudleya(Dudleya greenei), Indian pink (Silenelaciniata), and non-native grasses. Thecanyon bottom below the shelf isheavily grazed and trampled by deer,cattle, and elk.

In addition to the lone population onSanta Rosa Island, Arabis hoffmannii isalso currently known from three smallpopulations that collectively cover lessthan 0.4 hectare (1 acre) on Santa CruzIsland. One of these three populations,near Platts Harbor is located on rockyvolcanic cliffs along a north-facingcanyon on lands owned by TNC.Because of inaccessibility, and the loosestructure of the volcanic rock, the cliffsite has not been thoroughly surveyed.Only a few dozen plants have beendirectly observed, but the cliffs maysupport additional individuals. Asecond population, near CentinelaGrade, is growing on Santa Cruz Islandvolcanics and is associated with giantcoreopsis (Coreopsis gigantea), SantaCruz Island buckwheat (Eriogonumarborescens), and coastal prickly pear(Opuntia littoralis), on lands owned andmanaged by TNC. When Junak relocatedthis population, approximately 30individuals were seen. TNC hasmonitored this population since 1990,with fewer than 30 plants observed eachyear (Klinger 1994a). The thirdpopulation on Santa Cruz Island waslocated in 1995 near Stanton Ranch, andconsists of 16 plants as of 1996 (Wilken1996).

Recent research by Wilken (1996) onreproductive strategies of Arabishoffmannii shows that individual plantsin cultivation may reproduce within 2years following establishment, withsome plants surviving for at least 5years. Individual rosettes aremonocarpic, but some plants have morethan one rosette. Arabis hoffmannii

does not appear to be dependent uponpollinators for seed set, and individualplants may produce as many as 3,000 to4,000 seed. However, the small sizes ofnatural populations indicate thatestablishment success of new plants islow. Monitoring results at two sites onSanta Cruz Island (Centinela andStanton) suggest poor establishmentsuccess because of a lack of favorableseed germination sites, a high rate ofseedling mortality, or a combination ofboth factors (Wilken 1996). At these twosites, surviving plants tend to be foundin the shade of shrubs where there is alow cover of annual species, suggestingthat Arabis hoffmannii cannot toleratecompetition with a high cover of annualspecies. Fewer than 100 plants in totalwere present in the three studiedpopulations (Wilken 1996).

The major threats to Arabishoffmannii are loss of soil, habitatdegradation, trampling of potential seedgermination sites by non-nativeungulates, predation resulting from feralpig rooting, and competition withannual plants.

Arctostaphylos confertiflora (SantaRosa Island manzanita) was describedby Eastwood in 1934 from a collectionmade by Hoffmann 4 years earlier ‘‘in asheltered dell south of Black Mountain’’on Santa Rosa Island (Eastwood 1934).Munz (1958) published the newcombination Arctostaphylos subcordatavar. confertiflora. However, insubsequent treatments of the genusWells (1968, 1993) has continued to usethe original taxonomy.

Arctostaphylos confertiflora is aperennial shrub in the heath (Ericaceae)family that grows 0.1 to 2.0 m (4 in to6.5 ft) high (Wells 1993). The plant hassmooth, dark red-purple bark, denselyhairy branchlets, bracts, and pedicels,and light green, round-ovate leaves. Theflowers are borne in numerous dense


panicles that mature into flattenedreddish-brown fruits (McMinn 1951).The only other manzanita that occurs onSanta Rosa Island, Arctostaphylos.tomentosa, forms a fire-resistant burl atthe base of the stems. Arctostaphylosconfertiflora is not burl-forming and isconsidered an obligate seeder, requiringfire for regeneration. It occurs inprostrate and upright forms, the formermost likely due to climatic andherbivorous influences (McMinn 1951).

Arctostaphylos confertiflora is knownonly from two areas on Santa RosaIsland. All but a few plants occur in thenortheast portion of the island near, andeast of, Black Mountain. Individualplants have been observed at scatteredsites from upper Lobo Canyon east tothe Torrey pine groves along Beechen’sBay, a distance of about 5 km (3 mi).Junak estimated that total habitat for theplant comprises only a few acres (S.Junak, pers. comm. 1994); Clark et al.(1990) noted that it occurs in lownumbers. During 1994 surveys, threesmall patches were mapped within theTorrey pine groves, two in canyons onthe north side of Black Mountain, andone plant near South Point (Rindlaub1995). Additional surveys of potentialhabitat were begun in 1996 by UnitedStates Geological Survey BiologicalResources Division (BRD) staff, but todate, few shrubs have been found(McEachern 1996). Observed shrubshave had recent twig growth browsedoff by deer, and no seedlings or youngplants have been observed. Ungulateshave access to more than 90 percent ofthe plants (McEachern 1996). Fewerthan 400 plants are estimated to occur,all restricted to nearly vertical canyonwalls in eight populations in the BlackMountain vicinity (McEachern andWilken 1996). Despite the steepness ofthe slopes, deer and elk are capable oftraveling along trails which provideaccess to various portions of thepopulations. A few individuals are alsoknown from Johnson’s Lee on the southside of the island (Rindlaub 1994).

The plant is found on sedimentarysubstrates of Monterey shales and softvolcanoclastic sediments derived fromSan Miguel volcanics (Weaver et al.1969). Near the southern tip of theisland, a few individuals are scatteredon the slopes above South Point onsandstone outcrops. The taxon occurs asa component of mixed chaparral, mixedwoodland, Torrey pine woodland, andisland pine woodland communities.Researchers observed that elk and deerbed down in the shade of larger shrubs,including Arctostaphylos confertiflora,causing compaction and erosion of soils,and exposing the roots of the plants(McEachern and Wilken 1996).

Arctostaphylos confertiflora isthreatened by soil loss, lowreproductive success, and herbivory byelk and deer that has contributed toreproductive failure. The seed bank iseither absent or so depleted as a resultof soil loss that a catastrophic fire couldeliminate the species becauserecruitment is dependent upon firetreated seed.

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis (islandbarberry) was described by Munz (Munzand Roos 1950) based on a specimencollected by Wolf in 1932 ‘‘west ofsummit of Buena Vista Grade (alsoknown as Centinela Grade), interior ofSanta Cruz Island.’’ In 1981, Roofincluded this taxon in the genusMahonia because the leaves arecompound, in contrast with the simpleleaves of Berberis (Roof 1981). However,Moran (1982) made the case that thisone character was insufficient to defendMahonia as a distinct natural group, andmany subsequent treatments haveincluded all North American taxapreviously referred to Mahonia asBerberis. This taxon has been treated asBerberis pinnata ssp. insularis by Munz(1974), Smith (1976), and Williams(1993).

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis is aperennial shrub in the barberry family(Berberidaceae). The plant hasspreading stems that reach 2 to 8 m (5to 25 ft) high, with large leaves dividedinto five to nine glossy green leaflets.Clusters of yellow flowers at the branchtips develop into blue berries coveredwith a white bloom (waxy coating).Because new shoots can sprout fromunderground rhizomes, many stemsmay actually represent one geneticclone (Hochberg et al. 1980b, CaliforniaNative Plant Society (CNPS) 1984,Williams 1993). Recent researchindicates that, although the plant isgenetically self-compatible, it requiresinsect visitation for pollination. Eachflower produces from 2 to 3 seeds, butin seed germination experiments only 8out of 40 seedlings survived longenough to produce secondary leaves(Wilken 1996). Observations on the oneplant in upper Canada Christy indicatedthat, of over 100 flowers that were inbud in January 1996, only 7 immaturefruit had developed by May, 1996(Wilken 1996).

In a letter to Hoffmann in 1932concerning Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis, Munz remarked that,‘‘Brandegee says of B. pinnata, that it is‘‘common’’ on S.C. [Santa Cruz]’’ (S.Junak, in litt. 1994). Berberis pinnatassp. insularis is currently known fromthree small populations in moist,shaded canyons on Santa Cruz Island.Hoffmann found several individuals ‘‘in

Elder canyon that runs from west intoCanada de la Casa’’ on Santa Rosa Islandin 1930 (California Natural DiversityData Base (CNDDB) 1993). No plantshave been found on Santa Rosa Islandsince that time despite surveys by stafffrom the Service, NPS, BRD, and SantaBarbara Botanic Garden between 1993and 1996. Dunkle collected Berberispinnata ssp. insularis on West AnacapaIsland in 1940, but the plant was notfound there again until 1980, when oneclone was found in Summit Canyonassociated with chaparral species,including poison oak (Toxicodendrondiversilobum), monkeyflower (Mimulusaurantiacus), coyote bush (Baccharissp.), goldenbush (Hazardia detonsus),island alum-root (Heuchera maxima)and wild cucumber (Marahmacrocarpus). In 1994, Junak,Halvorson, and Chaney visited this siteand found that the clone had died(Chaney 1994), and the plant istherefore believed to be extirpated fromAnacapa Island.

The three known populations ofBerberis pinnata ssp. insularis occur onSanta Cruz Island. One population onthe north slope of Diablo Peakcomprises 24 large stems and 75 smallstems (Klinger 1994c); this number ofstems may represent one or severalclonal individuals. In 1979, a secondpopulation near Campo Raton (CanadaCristy) was estimated to be fewer than10 individuals, but in 1985, only oneplant was seen (CNDDB 1994). Habitatfor the plant was systematicallysearched recently in the Campo Ratonarea and two individuals were located.Both plants were in danger of uprootingfrom erosion and only one plantflowered but it did not set fruit (Wilkenin litt. 1997). The size of the thirdknown population, at Hazard’s Canyon,has not been determined due toinaccessibility, but Schuyler estimatedthat there were between one and sevenplants at this location (Wilken 1996).

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis isthreatened by soil loss and habitatalteration caused by feral pig rooting.Although ex-situ clones have beenestablished from vegetative cuttings,populations in the field show no signsof successful sexual reproduction.

Castilleja mollis (soft-leavedpaintbrush) was described by Pennell asCastilleja mollis in 1947, based onmaterial collected on Santa Rosa Islandin 1939 (Ingram 1990, Heckard et al.1991). Hoover (1970) and Munz andKeck (1973) included plants of coastalsand dunes of San Luis Obispo Countyin the description of this taxon.However, the taxon is now consideredto be endemic to Santa Rosa Island(Ingram 1990, Heckard et al. 1991).


Castilleja mollis is a partially parasiticperennial herb in the figwort(Scrophulariaceae) family. The mostlikely host in this case is goldenbush(Isocoma menziesii var. sedoides)(Painter 1995, Wetherwax 1995). Theplant has semi-prostrate branches thatreach 40 cm (16 in) in length, withbracts and upper leaves that are grayish,fleshy, broad and rounded and crowdedat the apex, and the bract and calyx areyellow to yellowish green above(Heckard et al. 1991). Ingram (1990)identified several morphologicaldifferences between Castilleja mollisand the similar Castilleja affinis,including the indument (covering) ofdistinctive branched hairs and roundedstem leaves in the former taxon.Observations by Rindlaub (1994) andNPS staff (NPS 1996) indicate thatindividuals at higher elevations at onesite (Carrington Point) may representhybrids between Castilleja affinis andCastilleja mollis.

Two specimens collected from PointBennett on San Miguel Island by Elmorein 1938 are possibly Castilleja mollis(Wallace 1985; Heckard et al. 1991).Despite recent searches, the taxon hasnot been seen on the San Miguel Islandsince then (S. Junak, pers. comm. 1994).Castilleja mollis is currently knownonly from two areas on Santa RosaIsland, Carrington Point in the northeastcorner of the island, and west of JawGulch and Orr’s Camp along the northshore of the island. At Carrington Point,the plant occurs in stabilized dunescrub vegetation dominated bygoldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var.sedoides), lupine (Lupinus albifrons),and Pacific ryegrass (Leymus pacificus).At Jaw Gulch, the paintbrush occurswith alien iceplants (Carpobrotus spp.and Mesembryanthemum spp.), nativemilk-vetch (Astragalus miguelensis),and alien grasses.

In 1993, the Jaw Gulch populationwas estimated to have up to 1,000individuals covering an area of less than2 ha (5 ac) (C. Rutherford and T.Thomas, USFWS, pers. obs. 1993), anestimate confirmed in recent fieldstudies (McEachern and Wilken 1996).During Ingram’s field studies in 1990,the Carrington Point populationconsisted of only 20 individuals (Ingram1990). The current estimate for theCarrington population is severalhundred plants (McEachern and Wilken1996).

In 1994, Rindlaub gatheredabundance and density data for the twopopulations: on Carrington Point,population density averaged 0.9 plants/sq m, and at Jaw Gulch, populationdensity averaged 2.0 plants/sq m.Demographic plots were established in

1995 in both populations. Althoughanalysis of 1995 and 1996 data is notcomplete, initial analysis indicates thatapproximately 50 percent of Castillejamollis stems were broken, eitherthrough browsing or trampling. Trailingand deer droppings have been observedat the Carrington Point population, andcattle, deer, and elk droppings wereobserved at the Jaw Gulch populationbetween 1994 and 1996 (McEachern1996). The Jaw Gulch population wasalso used as a bedding area for deerduring the fall of 1993 (Dan Richards,CINP, pers. comm. 1994).

The most severe threat to Castillejamollis is deer and elk browsing andgrazing. Other threats to Castillejamollis are soil loss, habitat alterationand herbivory by cattle, deer bedding,and competition with alien plant taxa.Castilleja mollis is also known to behemi-parasitic, or partially dependenton a host plant for water and dissolvedsubstances (Chuang and Heckard 1993).Therefore, loss of the probable hostplant, goldenbush, through these samemechanisms also reduces the ability ofCastilleja mollis to reproduce (E.Painter, in litt. 1997, M. Weatherwax, inlitt. 1995).

Dudleya nesiotica (Santa Cruz Islanddudleya) was described by Moran(1950b) as Hasseanthus nesioticus basedon a specimen collected from a ‘‘flatarea near edge of sea bluff, FraserPoint,’’ on the west end of Santa CruzIsland in 1950. Three years later, Moran(1953) transferred the species to thegenus Dudleya, as Dudleya nesiotica.

Dudleya nesiotica is a succulentperennial in the stonecrop family(Crassulaceae). The plant has a corm-like stem with 8 to 16 oblanceolateleaves in a basal rosette from whichseveral flowering stems 3 to 10 cm (1.2to 4.0 in) tall arise. The white five-petaled flowers and resulting fruits areerect to ascending. Recent research byWilken (1996) indicates that the numberof flowers per plant ranges from 6 to 12.

Dudleya nesiotica is known only fromone population, the type locality atFraser Point on the west end of SantaCruz Island (Vivrett in litt. 1996). Thepopulation is situated on the lowestmarine terrace in coastal scrub andgrasslands (Junak et al. 1995). The westend of the population is associated withsagebrush (Atriplex californica),iceplant (Mesembryanthemumnodiflorum), alkali heath (Frankeniasalina), goldfields (Lastheniacalifornica), and pickleweed (Salicorniasubterminalis). The east end of thepopulation is associated with Australiansaltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), brome(Bromus hordeaceus), goldfields(Lasthenia californica), purple

needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), andvulpia (Vulpia myuros).

Since the time the proposed rule wasprepared, more accurate information onlocation, extent, and size of populationshas been gathered by Wilken (1996).Within the general area near FraserPoint, where a total of 13 ha (32 ac) areoccupied by the plant, four sites of highdensities were sampled. From 1994 to1996, estimates of absolute populationsize ranged from 30,000 to 60,000 plants(Wilken in litt. 1997) which is asubstantial increase in the numbersbelieved to exist during the preparationof the proposed rule.

The Nature Conservancy hascalculated density, cover, and height ofplants within 30 randomly selectedplots at this location since 1991. Annualvariation in density has ranged from16.9 to 29.1 plants/sq m (20.2 to 34.8/sq yard), annual variation in cover hasranged from 8.7 to 16.1 percent, andannual variation in height of rosetteshas ranged from 1.27 to 1.68 cm (0.50to 0.66 in) (Klinger 1995).

Dudleya nesiotica remains vulnerableto soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs, anddisturbance by pig rooting. Like manydudleyas, Dudleya nesiotica is alsovulnerable to collecting for botanical orhorticultural use (Moran 1979).

Galium buxifolium (island bedstraw)was described by Greene in 1886 basedon specimens collected on Santa CruzIsland (Ferris 1960). In 1958, Dempsterincluded the taxon as a variety ofGalium catalinense. Ferris (1960)suggested that the taxon wassubspecifically distinct from Galiumcatalinense. In 1973, Dempsterrecognized the taxon as a separatespecies based on differences in thenutlet hairs between it and Galiumcatalinense.

Galium buxifolium is a small, stoutwoody shrub in the bedstraw(Rubiaceae) family. The plant grows to12 decimeters (dm) (4 ft) in height, andhas swollen nodes bearing numerousleafy branches. The leaves are largerthan those of most other Galium taxa,and have conspicuous lateral veins withstout hairs on the lower surface(Dempster 1973). The relatively broadleaves and the tiny upward-curved hairsthat cover the fruits are uniquecharacteristics that distinguish it fromthe six other species of Galium thatoccur on the islands (Hochberg et al.1980b).

A putative collection of Galiumbuxifolium was made from the ‘‘TorreyPine grove, Santa Rosa Island,’’ in 1941by Moran; apparently this was amisidentified collection of Galiumnuttallii (York, in litt. 1987). Thereforeno collections of this taxon are known


from Santa Rosa Island. Galiumbuxifolium is currently known fromSanta Cruz and San Miguel Islandswhere it occurs on north-facing seacliffs. Eight populations occur on TNClands on Santa Cruz Island. In 1980,Hochberg et al. (1980b) noted that twoof these populations had fewer than 50individuals each, and the remainingpopulations had less than sixindividuals each. No recent statusinformation is available for the SantaCruz Island populations. Twopopulations were located on San MiguelIsland in 1993, one with about 200individuals, and the other having fewerthan ten plants. Five other historicalcollections have been made from theisland, but no plants have been seen atthese other localities for almost 30years. The plant occurs on ‘‘bluffs androcky slopes’’ (Dempster 1973) incoastal sage scrub and island pineforest.

Galium buxifolium is threatened bysoil loss, and habitat alteration andherbivory from feral pig rooting andsheep grazing.

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii(Hoffmann’s slender-flowered Gilia) wasdescribed as Gilia hoffmannii byEastwood in 1940 based on collectionsmade by Hoffmann ‘‘in sandy soil atEast Point’’ on Santa Rosa Island tenyears earlier (Eastwood 1940). Eastwoodremarked that, although the taxon isrelated to Gilia tenuiflora, no variationof the latter included the leafy stemsand terminal congested inflorescence ofGilia hoffmannii (Eastwood 1940).Nevertheless, Jepson (1943) includedthe taxon in the description of Giliatenuiflora var. tenuiflora in his flora ofCalifornia, as did Abrams (1951) in hisflora of the Pacific states. In 1959, Munzincluded the varieties of tenuiflora assubspecies, including ssp. hoffmannii,as per a 1956 treatment by the Grants(Munz and Keck 1973). Thisnomenclature was used in the latesttreatment of the genus (Day 1993). Ofthe four subspecies of Gilia tenuiflora,the subspecies hoffmannii is the onlyone that occurs in southern California.Two other Gilia species occur on SantaRosa Island, but G. tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii is distinguished from themby the presence of arachnoid woollypubescence at the base of the stem.

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii is asmall, erect annual herb in the phlox(Polemoniaceae) family. The centralstem grows 6 to 12 cm (2.4 to 4.7 in) tall,arising from a rosette of densely hairy,strap-shaped, short-lobed leaves. Theflowers are purplish and funnel-shapedbelow, widening to five pinkish corollalobes.

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmanniihistorically has only been collectedfrom two locations on Santa RosaIsland. A collection was made by ReidMoran from the ‘‘arroyo between Ranchand Carrington Point’’ in 1941(Rutherford and Thomas 1994). In 1994,Rindlaub located a population of 88individuals covering 2 sq m thatreasonably corresponds to Moran’s siteand is grazed by cattle (Rindlaub 1994).The other historical location is at thetype locality near East Point on SantaRosa Island, where it is still found.Here, it occurs as a component of dunescrub vegetation with sand verbena(Abronia maritima), silver beach-weed(Ambrosia chamissonis), saltgrass(Distichlis spicata), miniature lupine(Lupinus bicolor), plantain (Plantagoerecta), and sand-dune bluegrass (Poadouglasii) (T. Thomas, in litt. 1993). In1994, this population consisted of about2,000 plants (Rindlaub 1994). During1994 surveys, a third populationcomprised of three colonies was foundat Skunk Point. This populationcomprised approximately 3,000 to 3,500individuals that had been obviouslygrazed by cattle (Rindlaub 1994).

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii isthreatened by soil damage, habitatalteration and herbivory by cattle, elkand deer. A sandy service road used byNPS and ranchers bisects the East Pointpopulation. NPS constructed a fence toexclude cattle from a portion of thelargest population; however, aconsiderable portion of the populationhas had increased trampling by cattleand greater impacts from vehicles as aresult of the fence construction andcontinued use of the road.

Helianthemum greenei (Island rush-rose) was described by Robinson asHelianthemum greenei in 1895 (Abrams1951). The type locality was describedas ‘‘a dry summit near the central partof the island of Santa Cruz’’ (Abrams1951). This nomenclature was retainedin the most recent treatment for thegenus (McClintock 1993).

Helianthemum greenei is a smallshrub in the rock-rose (Cistaceae)family. The plant grows to 0.5 m (18 in)tall and has alternate leaves coveredwith star-shaped hairs. The reddish,glandular stalks support yellow-petaledflowers to 2.5 cm (1 in) wide. The fruitis a pointed capsule 0.6 cm (0.25 in)long. A more abundant species found onthe islands, Helianthemum scoparium,is similar in appearance, but is notglandular-hairy and has greenish stalksand smaller fruits (Hochberg 1980b).

McMinn (1951) and later Thorne(1967) reported seeing Helianthemumgreenei on San Miguel Island, but nocollections exist from that island in

herbaria (Hochberg et al. 1980b, Wallacen.d.). Two collections of the plant weremade from Santa Rosa Island by Eplingand Erickson and Dunn in the 1930’s(Wallace 1985), but no collections onSanta Rosa Island have been made sincethat time, despite recent surveys.Helianthemum greenei was reportedfrom the northeast side of Black JackMountain on Santa Catalina Island byThorne (1967) in 1966. No collectionshave been made at this locality but apopulation of three individuals wasrecently reported from there (JanetTakara, Catalina Island Conservancy,pers. comm. 1994). Habitat for the planton Santa Catalina Island is being grazedby goats, mule deer, and bison, and isbeing rooted by pigs.

In addition to the one population onSanta Catalina Island, Helianthemumgreenei is currently known from 14populations on Santa Cruz Island. Thetaxon is found in open, exposed areas inchaparral, coastal sage scrub, and islandpine forest. In 1980, prior to sheepremoval from TNC lands on Santa CruzIsland, Hochberg et al. (1980b) foundthat, of ten populations, two had severaldozen individuals, and six others hasfewer than six individuals. Hochberg etal. (1980b) indicated that the plant iseliminated by intense feral animaldisturbance, and noted that thepopulation recorded by Abrams andWiggins in 1930 at Pelican Bay has notbeen relocated. The BRD sponsoredsurveys in 1995 and 1996 reported 14populations, ten of which had nine asthe mean number of plants and four hadpopulations that ranged from 500 to1,000 (McEachern and Wilken 1996).The number of individuals was clearlyrelated to recent fire history with the tensites having few individuals beingunburned, and four populations with amean number of 663 having burned in1994 (McEachern and Wilken 1996).

Helianthemum greenei is vulnerableto soil damage, altered fire frequenciesand intensities, and rooting by feralpigs.

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var.nesioticus (Santa Cruz Islandbushmallow) was described byRobinson in 1897, as Malvastrumnesioticum, based on material collectedby Greene in 1886 (Robinson 1897).This taxon has been placed in severaldifferent genera, as Malacothamnusnesioticus (Abrams 1910), Sphaeralceanesiotica (Jepson 1925), Sphaeralceafasciculata var. nesiotica (Jepson 1936),and Malvastrum fasciculatum var.nesioticum by McMinn (Kearney 1951).Kearney (1951) published thecombination Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus. Bates (1993)did not recognize var. nesioticus as


being distinct noting thatMalacothamnus fasciculatus is a highlyvariable species ‘‘with many indistinctand intergrading local forms.’’ Of var.nesioticus, Bates (1993) notes that thetaxon is essentially indistinguishablefrom the mainland var. nuttallii.However, recent studies on the geneticsof Malacothamnus have determined thatvar. nesioticus is a distinct variety(Swenson et al. 1995), and it isrecognized as such in the Flora of SantaCruz Island (Junak et al. 1995).

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var.nesioticus is a small soft-woody shrubin the mallow (Malvaceae) family. Theplant reaches up to 2 m (6 ft) tall, andhas slender branches covered with star-shaped hairs. The palmately shapedleaves are dark green on the uppersurface and gray on the lower surface.The rose-colored flowers are up to 3.75cm (1.5 in) broad and scattered alongthe ends of the branches (Hochberg et al.1980b). It is differentiated from themainland var. nuttallii by its bicoloredleaves and genetic distinction (Swensonet al. 1995).

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var.nesioticus was already rare by the turnof the century when Greene wrote thatthe plant was ‘‘rare; only two bushesseen, and these under the protection oflarge opuntias; perhaps thus kept fromthe sheep’’ (Hochberg et al. 1980a).Malacothanmus fasciculatus var.nesioticus is currently known from twosmall populations on Santa Cruz Islandwhere it occurs within a coastal sagescrub community (Wilken 1996). Onepopulation of less than 50 individuals(10 clones) is located on the west shoreof the island near the historic ChristyRanch. The second population wasdiscovered in 1993 in the Central Valleynear the University of California FieldStation. Recent genetic analyses of theCentral Valley population indicatedthat, although there are 19 individualshrubs, they consist of only 3 genotypesor 3 clones (Swensen et al. 1995).Malacothamnus fasciculatus var.nesioticus is threatened by soil loss,habitat alteration, and feral pig rooting.

Malacothrix indecora (Santa CruzIsland malacothrix) was described byGreene (1886) as Malacothrix indecorabased on specimens collected from‘‘islets close to the northern shore’’ ofSanta Cruz Island (Greene 1886). In1957, Williams published thecombination Malacothrix foliosa var.indecora (Ferris 1960). Munz (1974)subsequently synonymized the taxonwith Malacothrix foliosa. However,Ferris (1960) and others (Smith 1976,Davis 1980) continued to recognize thetaxon as a separate species with thename Malacothrix indecora. The latternomenclature was retained in the most

recent treatment of the genus (Davis1993).

Malacothrix indecora is an annualherb in the aster (Asteraceae) family.The 20 to 40 cm (8 to 16 in) tall stemssupport numerous broadly lobed fleshyleaves with blunt tips. The greenishyellow flowers are in hemispheric headssurrounded by linear bracts (Hochberg1980b; Scott in Junak et al. 1995). Twoother annual species of Malacothrixoccur on the same islands asMalacothrix indecora; however, theachenes (seeds) of Malacothrix similisare topped with 18 teeth and 1 bristleand Malacothrix squalida is toppedwith irregular teeth and no bristle,whereas Malacothrix indecora hasneither of these features (Scott in Junaket al. 1995).

Historical collections of Malacothrixindecora were made from severallocations on the northeast shore of SanMiguel Island, and on Prince Island offof the north shore of San Miguel Islandby Greene, and, later, by Hoffmann(Hochberg et al. 1979; Davis 1987). In1978, Hochberg et al. (1979) observedthree populations. Halvorson et al.(1992) reported finding this species atone location during surveys in 1988 and1989, but no collections were made toconfirm identification of the taxon. OnSanta Cruz Island, Malacothrixindecora was collected near TwinHarbor by Williams in 1939 (Davis1987), but this population has not beenrelocated.

Malacothrix indecora is currentlyknown from two populations. Junakdiscovered one population in 1980 atBlack Point on the west end of SantaCruz Island. Several hundredindividuals were observed at this site byJunak in 1985 in exposed coastal flats,where it was associated with Santa CruzIsland buckwheat (Eriogonum grandevar. rubescens) and iceplant(Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum)(CNDDB 1991). On a subsequent trip in1989, only 50 plants were observed inthe same location (S. Junak, pers. comm.1994), and fewer than 100 plants in1996 (Wilken in litt. 1997). The secondpopulation of Malacothrix indecora,also comprised of fewer than 100 plants,was discovered on Santa Rosa Island in1996 at the mouth of Lobo Canyon(Wilken in litt. 1997).

Malacothrix indecora is threatened bysoil loss, habitat alteration andherbivory resulting from feral pigrooting, cattle grazing and trampling,and seabird activity. Historical habitatfor Malacothrix indecora on San MiguelIsland and Prince Island has beenaltered by seabird nesting activity.

Malacothrix squalida (islandmalacothrix) was described by Greenein 1886 from specimens collected from

an islet off the northern shore of SantaCruz Island (Greene 1886). In 1957,Williams published the combinationMalacothrix foliosa var. squalida; a yearlater, Ferris (1960) published thecombination Malacothrix insularis var.squalida. In 1959, Munz recognized thetaxon as Malacothrix squalida; however,14 years later, he synonymized it withMalacothrix foliosa (Munz 1974). In areview of insular species of Malacothrix,Davis (1980) recognized the taxon asMalacothrix squalida, a treatment herecently retained (Davis 1993).

Malacothrix squalida is an annualherb in the aster family. UnlikeMalacothrix indecora, the plant onlyreaches 9 cm (3.5 in) tall, and has linearto widely lanceolate leaves that areirregularly toothed or lobed. The lightyellow flowers are clustered inhemispheric heads 12 to 15 millimeters(mm) (0.5 to 0.6 in) long. Malacothrixindecora is the only other annualMalacothrix that occurs on the sameisland as Malacothrix squalida;however, the latter is a much largerspecies, and also differs in the achenecharacteristics previously mentioned(Junak et al. 1995).

Malacothrix squalida has beencollected from two locations along thenorth shore of Santa Cruz Island; Greenecollected it near Prisoner’s Harbor in1886, but the species was not seen onthe island again until Philbrick andBenedict collected it in 1968 near PotatoHarbor where sheep overgrazing is amajor problem (Rutherford and Thomas1994). On Middle Anacapa Island, theplant was first collected by Martin Piehlin 1963, and more recently in 1978 and1986. The plant was known from severalsmall colonies atop coastal bluffs on theeast end of the island. Surveys by Junakand Davis in 1989 failed to find anyindividuals, however, this may havebeen due to the drought that year (S.Junak, pers. comm. 1994). AlthoughMalacothrix squalida has not been seenin recent years, all historical localitiesand potential habitat for the specieshave not been inventoried.

All of the historical localities forMalacothrix squalida are impacted bysoil loss, habitat alteration, sheepgrazing, and feral pig rooting. Anyextant populations are also likely to bethreatened by these factors. Seabirdnesting may have localized impacts tosome populations on Middle AnacapaIsland.

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis(island phacelia) was described byMunz in 1932 based on plants growing‘‘on sand dunes at northeastern part ofSanta


Rosa Island’’ (Munz 1932). Jepsonpublished the new combinationPhacelia curvipes var. insularis in 1943.After examining specimens from coastalnorthern California and determiningtheir affinity to the island plants,Howell (1945) re-elevated the taxon tospecific level, separating out thenorthern California plants as Phaceliainsularis var. continentis, leavingPhacelia insularis var. insularis to referto the island plants. In 1951, Abrams,who did not have access to collectionsof Phacelia from northern California,included the taxon in the description ofPhacelia divaricata, a taxon common insouthern California. In 1959, Munzpublished the new combinationPhacelia divaricata var. insularis.Constance agreed with Howell’sinterpretation and has referred to thetaxon as Phacelia insularis var. insularis(Constance 1979). This nomenclaturewas retained in the latest treatment ofthe genus (Wilken et al. 1993).

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis is adecumbent (reclining), branched annualof the waterleaf (Hydrophyllaceae)family. The short-hairy and glandularstems grow to 1.5 dm (6 in) high froma basal rosette of leaves. The smalllavender to violet, bell-shaped flowersare borne in loose cymes. Phaceliainsularis var. insularis can bedistinguished from the other species ofPhacelia on the islands based on thehastate leaf shape with basal lobes. Theother Phacelia have pinnately dividedor undivided but ovate leaves.

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularisoccurs on Santa Rosa Island and SanMiguel Island. Clifton Smith collectedthe species at Carrington Point on SantaRosa Island in 1973, where SarahChaney also found the species in 1994.In subsequent surveys 31 plants werereported from this site (Rindlaub 1994).On San Miguel Island, Phaceliainsularis ssp. insularis was collected byHoffmann in 1930 and by Munz in 1932.It was not collected again until 1978,when four populations were found(Hochberg et al. 1979). Drost relocatedone of these sites on a bluff aboveCuyler Harbor in 1984 (Halvorson et al.1992). NPS staff has been watching forthe taxon on San Miguel Island, but ithas not been seen. The population onSanta Rosa Island is currently the onlyknown occurrence. Phacelia insularisssp. insularis is found within the islandgrassland community which isdominated by alien grasses, includingslender wild oat (Avena barbata), wildoat (Avena fatua), ripgut (Bromusdiandrus), and soft chess (Bromushordeaceus), with scattered nativebunchgrasses, shrubs, and herbs(Hochberg et al. 1979).

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis isthreatened by soil damage, competitionwith non-native grasses, and habitatalteration caused by cattle grazing, andelk and deer browsing.

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus (SantaCruz Island fringepod) was described byGreene in 1886 based on material heand Brandegee collected where theyfound it ‘‘common on mossy shelvesand crevices of high rocky summits andnorthward slopes’’ on Santa Cruz Island(Greene 1886b). Four decades later,Jepson published the new combinationThysanocarpus laciniatus var.conchuliferus as one of three varieties ofThysanocarpus laciniatus (Jepson1925). Later, Abrams (1944) treated theplant as a species. Munz, however,considered it to be one of six varietiesof Thysanocarpus laciniatus (Munz andKeck 1973). In the most recent treatmentof the genus, Rollins treated the plant asa species (Rollins 1993).

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus is asmall delicate annual herb in themustard (Brassicaceae) family. The oneto several branches grow 5 to 12.7 cm(2 to 5 in) high. The narrow, linearlylobed leaves alternate along the stems,which terminate in a raceme of minutepink to lavender flowers. While allmembers of this genus have round,flattened fruits with wings,Thysanocarpus conchuliferus is theonly species in the genus with a bowl-shaped fruit; this taxon is also smallerin stature than Thysanocarpuslaciniatus, which occurs in the samehabitat (Wilken in litt. 1997).

In 1932, Ralph Hoffmann reportedthat Thysanocarpus conchuliferus was‘‘frequent * * * from the north shore tothe southwest portion of the island’’(Hochberg et al. 1980a). Fourteenhistorical locations are known fromherbarium records. In 1980, eight ofthese populations were relocated(Hochberg et al. 1980b). In 1991, plantswere found at six of these locations, butno plants were found at five other sites(Klinger 1994b). In 1993, no individualswere found at any of the 14 reportedlocations. Survey reports indicate that,in addition to abundant rainfall thatmay have increased competition fromalien grasses, rooting by feral pigs wasobserved at all 14 locations (Klinger1994b). No verifiable observations ofthis species have been made in over 2years, but all historic locations have notbeen revisited (Wilken in litt. 1997).

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus occurson rocky outcrops on ridges and canyonslopes, and is associated with a varietyof herbs, ferns, grasses, dudleya, andSelaginella (Santa Barbara BotanicGarden 1994). All of the historicallocalities for Thysanocarpus

conchuliferus are impacted by soil loss,habitat alteration and predationresulting from feral pig rooting. Anyextant populations are also likely to bethreatened by these factors.

Because all 13 taxa occur only assmall, isolated populations with fewindividuals, these plant species are alsomore vulnerable to extinction by suchrandom events as storms, drought, orlandslide. The small populations andfew individuals may also make thesetaxa vulnerable to reduced reproductivevigor.

Previous Federal ActionFederal action on these plants began

as a result of section 12 of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, whichdirected the Secretary of theSmithsonian Institution to prepare areport on those plants considered to beendangered, threatened, or extinct in theUnited States. This report, designated asHouse Document No. 94–51, waspresented to Congress on January 9,1975. In that document, Arabishoffmannii, Castilleja mollis, Galiumbuxifolium, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, and Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis were considered to bethreatened, and Dudleya nesiotica andMalacothamnus fasciculatus var.nesiotica (as Malacothamnusfasciculatus) were considered to beendangered. The Service published anotice in the July 1, 1975, FederalRegister (40 FR 27823) of its acceptanceof the report of the SmithsonianInstitution as a petition within thecontext of section 4(c)(2) (petitionprovisions are now found in section4(b)(3) of the Act) and its intentionthereby to review the status of the planttaxa named therein. On June 16, 1976,the Service published a proposal in theFederal Register (42 FR 24523) todetermine approximately 1,700 vascularplant species to be endangered speciespursuant to section 4 of the Act.Dudleya nesiotica was included in theJune 16, 1976, Federal Registerdocument.

General comments received inrelation to the 1976 proposal weresummarized in an April 26, 1978,Federal Register publication (43 FR17909). The Endangered Species ActAmendments of 1978 required that allproposals over 2 years old bewithdrawn. A 1-year grace period wasgiven to those proposals already morethan 2 years old. In the December 10,1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796),the Service published a notice ofwithdrawal of the portion of the June 6,1976, proposal that had not been madefinal, along with four other proposalsthat had expired.


The Service published an updatednotice of review for plants on December15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This noticeincluded Arabis hoffmannii, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Dudleya nesiotica, and Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesiotica as category 1taxa. Category 1 taxa were those forwhich the Service had on filesubstantial information on biologicalvulnerability and threats to supportpreparation of listing proposals.Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Galiumbuxifolium, and Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii were included as category 2taxa. Category 2 taxa were those forwhich data in the Service’s possessionindicate listing is possibly appropriate,but for which substantial data onbiological vulnerability and threats werenot currently known or on file tosupport proposed rules. On February 28,1996, the Service published a notice ofreview in the Federal Register (61 FR7596) that discontinued the designationof category 2 species as candidates.

On November 28, 1983, the Servicepublished in the Federal Register asupplement to the Notice of Review (48FR 53640), in which Arabis hoffmanniiwas listed as a category 1* taxon, theasterisk indicating that the species wasbelieved to be extinct. In the samenotice, Castilleja mollis, Dudleyanesiotica, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Helianthemum greenei,Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis (asMahonia), Malacothamnus fasciculatus,Phacelia insularis var. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus wereincluded as Category 2 candidates.

The plant notice was revised again onSeptember 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). Inthat notice, all taxa maintained theirprevious status. On February 21, 1990(55 FR 6184), the plant notice was againrevised. In this notice, Arabishoffmannii was included as a category1 candidate, as individuals of this taxonhad been rediscovered since theprevious Notice of Review.Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Castillejamollis, Dudleya nesiotica, Galiumbuxifolium, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Helianthemum greenei,Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis,Malacothamnus fasciculatus, Phaceliainsularis var. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus wereincluded as category 2 candidates.Malacothrix indecora was included inthe February 21, 1990, notice for thefirst time as a category 2 candidate.

The plant notice was revised onSeptember 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Inthis notice, Arabis hoffmannii,Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Castillejamollis, Galium buxifolium, Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii, Berberis

pinnata ssp. insularis, Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Phacelia insularis var.insularis, and Thysanocarpusconchuliferus were included as category1 candidates. Dudleya nesiotica andHelianthemum greenei were included ascategory 2 candidates; Malacothrixsqualida was included for the first timeas a category 2 candidate.

On July 25, 1995, the Servicepublished a proposed rule in theFederal Register (60 FR 37993) to listArabis hoffmannii, Arctostaphylosconfertiflora, Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis, Castilleja mollis, Dudleyanesiotica, Galium buxifolium, Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Helianthemum greenei, Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis var. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus asendangered. Also included in thisproposed rule were Dudleyablochmaniae ssp. insularis, Dudleya sp.nov. ‘‘East Point,’’ and Heucheramaxima as endangered. Based uponnew information received sincepublishing the proposed rule, theproposed listing of the latter three taxahas been withdrawn by the Service asannounced in a separate FederalRegister notice published concurrentlywith this final rule.

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requiresthe Secretary to make certain findingson pending petitions within 12 monthsof their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the1982 amendments further requires thatall petitions pending on October 13,1982, be treated as having been newlysubmitted on that date. This was thecase for Arabis hoffmannii, Castillejamollis, Dudleya nesiotica, Galiumbuxifolium, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis, and Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus because the1975 Smithsonian report had beenaccepted as a petition. On October 13,1983, the Service found that thepetitioned listing of these species waswarranted, but precluded by otherpending listing actions, in accordancewith section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act;notification of this finding waspublished on January 20, 1984 (49 FR2485). Such a finding requires thepetition to be recycled, pursuant tosection 4(b)(3)(C)(I) of the Act. Thefinding was reviewed in October of 1984through 1993. Publication of theproposed rule constituted the warrantedfinding for these species.

The processing of this final rulefollows the Service’s fiscal year 1997listing priority guidance published inthe Federal Register on December 5,

1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidanceclarifies the order in which the Servicewill process rulemakings following tworelated events: (1) the lifting, on April26, 1996, of the moratorium on finallistings imposed on April 10, 1995(Public Law 104–6), and (2) therestoration of significant funding forlisting through the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act passed on April 26,1996, following severe fundingconstraints imposed by a number ofcontinuing resolutions betweenNovember 1995 and April 1996. Theguidance calls for giving highest priorityto handling emergency situations (Tier1) and second highest priority (Tier 2)to resolving the listing status ofoutstanding proposed listings. This finalrule falls under Tier 2.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

In the July 25, 1995 proposed rule andassociated notifications, all interestedparties were requested to submit factualreports or information that mightcontribute to the development of a finalrule. Appropriate Federal agencies,State agencies, local governments,scientific organizations, and otherinterested parties were contacted andrequested to comment. Newspapernotices inviting public comment werepublished on August 5, 1995 in theSanta Barbara News-Press and onAugust 11, 1995 in the Los AngelesTimes. The comment period closed onOctober 9, 1995. A second commentperiod was opened from January 22,1997 to February 21, 1997 (62 FR 3263)because of substantive changes in thestatus and conservation efforts for thebenefit of several of the taxa in the rule.

In compliance with Service policy oninformation standards under the Act (59FR 34270: July 1, 1994), the Servicesolicited the expert opinions of threeappropriate and independent specialistsregarding pertinent scientific orcommercial data and assumptionsrelating to the taxonomy, populationstatus, and supportive biological andecological information for the 16proposed plants. Comments from thesereviewers included corrections to therange of the species, the acceptance ofthe taxonomic determination for one ofthe species, and additional informationon populations and status for several ofthe species in the rule. These revisionshave been incorporated into this finalrule.

The Service received 15 lettersconcerning the proposed rule during thecomment periods, including those ofone State agency and 14 individuals orgroups. Eleven commenters supported


the listing proposal, one opposed it, andthree were neutral.

The Service has reviewed all of thewritten comments received during bothcomment periods. Some specificcomments were received pertaining tothe three taxa (Dudleya blochmaniaessp. insularis, Dudleya sp. nov. ‘‘EastPoint,’’ and Heuchera maxima) beingwithdrawn in a separate FederalRegister notice published concurrentlywith this rule. These comments wereincorporated into the notice ofwithdrawal. General comments receivedon all 16 taxa included in the proposedrule are addressed here. Severalcomments dealt with matters of opinionor legal history that were not relevant tothe listing decision. Several commentersprovided additional information that,along with other clarifications, has beenincorporated into the ‘‘Background’’ or‘‘Summary of Factors’’ sections of thisfinal rule. Opposing and technicalcomments on the rule have beenorganized into specific issues. Theseissues and the Service’s response toeach issue are summarized as follows:

Issue 1: One commenter asserted thatthe proposed action would result in ataking of private property, that the Vailand Vickers’ rights to graze on SantaRosa Island would be compromised, andthat the Service must consider theeconomic impact, including the cost ofpurchasing the remaining portion of the25 year lease, if the plants are listed.

Service Response: Santa Rosa Islandhas been the property of the UnitedStates Government since its acquisitionin 1986. The National Park andRecreation Act of 1978, as amended (16U.S.C. 410ff–1(d)(1)) states that theowner of a property acquired for aNational Park may retain the right of useand occupancy of all or a portion ofsuch property as the owner may elect.The warranty deed of sale between theFederal government and Vail andVickers specifies a right reserving to thegrantors (Vail) the right of theresidential use and occupancy for aperiod of 25 years under the terms andconditions set forth in Exhibit ‘‘A.’’ Thereserved premises were defined inExhibit ‘‘A’’ as three rectangular areas,including the ranch house, totaling 3 ha(7.6 ac) that shall be used only for non-commercial residential purposes (NPS1987). The conditions of 16 U.S.C. 410–1(d)(2) state that any property to whicha right of use and occupancy was notreserved by the former owner may beleased by the Secretary at the request ofthe former owner so long as the use ofthe property is compatible with theadministration of the park and with thepreservation of the resources therein. Nolease agreement exists between Vail and

Vickers and the NPS, and no grazingrights were retained by the grantors inthe deed of sale or in any documents orcommunications provided to the Serviceby the NPS. Grazing has been allowedthrough the issuance of discretionaryrenewable 5-year Special Use Permitsthat are separate and distinct from theconditions of sale. Uner 16 U.S.C. 410–1(d)(1), the Secretary was allowed totender to the prior owner the amountequal to the fair market value of thatportion which remains unexpired foronly the lands in the area specified inthe conditions of use and occupancy.The specified conditions of use andoccupancy will not be affected by thislisting action.

In addition, under section 4(b)(1)(A)of the Act, a listing determination mustbe based solely on the best scientificand commercial data available aboutwhether a species meets the Act’sdefinition of a threatened or endangeredspecies. The legislative history of thisprovision clearly states the intent ofCongress to ‘‘ensure’’ that listingdecisions are ‘‘based solely on biologicalcriteria and to prevent non-biologicalconsiderations from affecting suchdecisions,’’ H. R. Rep. No. 97–835, 97thCong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). As furtherstated in the legislative history,‘‘Applying economic criteria * * * toany phase of the species listing processis applying economics to thedeterminations made under section 4 ofthe Act and is specifically rejected bythe inclusion of the word ‘‘solely’’ inthis legislation,’’ H. R. Rep. No. 97–835,97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). Becausethe Service is precluded fromconsidering economic impacts in a finaldecision on a proposed listing, theService has not examined such impacts.

Issue 2: One commenter stated thatthe proposed listing action during thelisting moratorium was illegal.

Service Response: The listingmoratorium prohibited the Service fromfunding any actions for final listingdeterminations. It did not affect thepreparation and publication of proposedrules. The Service adhered strictly to theconditions of the moratorium andceased related listing activity once theproposed rule process was finished.

Issue 3: Two commenters stated thatthe Service did not give proper credenceto data presented by ranchers, otherland managers, and experts and that theService gave more weight to informationprovided by California Native PlantSociety volunteers.

Service Response: Starting in 1992,the Service requested from the public,in writing and in meetings, informationon the status of the plants and any datathat would assist the Service in making

a determination in this action. All dataprovided prior to and during the publiccomment periods or in the publicmeetings were included in the analysisto prepare the proposed rule and thisfinal rule. The Service is not aware ofany field data collected by the CaliforniaNative Plant Society.

Issue 4: Two commenters stated thatabrupt termination of livestock grazingwould be extremely harmful to theecosystems and plant communities ofSanta Rosa Island, specifically byincreasing the potential for weedinvasion.

Service Response: The Service hasnever advocated and is not proposingthe abrupt termination of livestockgrazing on Santa Rosa Island. AConservation Strategy Team (Team)composed of Service, NPS, and BRDbiologists have prepared a ConservationStrategy for Santa Rosa Island thatrecommends a gradual reduction ofcattle and horses, with total removal by2011, the expiration date of the reservedright of use and occupancy (Coonan etal. 1996). Santa Rosa Island has thesmallest proportion of weed species tonative species ratio of any of theChannel Islands and the NPS has beenactively managing the aggressiveinvasive aliens. Santa Rosa Island has98 non-native plants and Santa CruzIsland has 170 non-native plants (Junak1996). The life history and reproductivecharacteristics of the weedy species onSanta Rosa Island are adaptations thatallow them to take advantage of freshlydisturbed sites, such as those that arecreated by the current domesticlivestock management on the island.Surveys conducted by the NPS showthat the weed distribution correspondswith the areas that have the highestcattle use. It was the conclusion of theTeam that the removal of the non-nativegrazers and browsers (including deerand elk) from the island would decreasethe amount of open habitat available forweed invasion and would thereforeresult in a decline in weed numbers(Coonan et al. 1996). An additionalbenefit to the island ecosystem from thereduction and eventual elimination ofgrazing and browsing is that shrubwould reoccupy the introducedgrasslands that are artificiallymaintained by current grazing practices(Coonan et al. 1996).

Issue 5: One commenter claimed thatthe proposed rule seemed to imply thatall grazing is overgrazing. Thecommenter objected to the statementthat ‘‘the ultimate control on populationsizes for livestock on islands has beenstarvation’’ and asserted that the rulecharacterized cattle grazing as a diseaseor predation rather than utilization.


Service Response: The Service did notrefer to all grazing as overgrazing.Grazing during drought conditions hasresulted in severe damage to the nativevegetation and could be consideredovergrazing, especially when livestockstarvation has occurred. Such events aredescribed and documented in the‘‘Background’’ section of this rule.

The listing provisions of the Actprovide that a species may bedetermined to be endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1) of the Act. One of the factors is‘‘Disease or Predation’’ and the Servicenormally addresses the effects ofherbivory by any animal, includinglivestock, in the discussion of thisfactor.

Issue 6: One commenter stated thatthere was a lack of evidence of therelationship between grazing and theplants in question.

Service Response: The Service hasused over 100 references in preparingthe final rule. Three levels ofinformation are available: (i) Anextensive body of literature on theimpacts of non-native mammals toinsular vegetation and plant species, (ii)the results of long-term vegetationmonitoring by the NPS, and, (iii)specific observations on specific plants,e.g., deer and elk impacts to Castillejamollis and others cited in the ‘‘FactorsAffecting the Species’’ section of thisrule. This rule also cites informationconcerning how the condition of thehabitat upon which these speciesdepend has been degraded by grazingand browsing.

In addition, internationalconservation biologists familiar withisland biology recognized the damagethat non-native mammals cause toinsular biota when the Society forConservation Biology unanimouslypassed a resolution to promote theelimination of non-native mammalsfrom all of the islands off the coast ofwestern North America (Tershy et al.1994).

Issue 7: One commenter wasconcerned that the rule stated thatincreased sedimentation resulted fromlivestock grazing but that currentsedimentation rates were not presented.

Service Response: Data on currentsedimentation rates has been added tothe rule. A sediment and pollen analysishas documented both the increase insedimentation and the type conversionof habitat from brush to grass sincegrazing was introduced to the island.The current sedimentation level is anorder of magnitude greater than thatprior to the introduction of grazing.Please see the Factor A discussion

under the ‘‘Factors Affecting theSpecies’’ section for further details.

Issue 8: One commenter stated that anexisting range management plan wasdesigned to protect resources and thatthe Service claimed that the rangemanagement plan currently in use forSanta Rosa Island ‘‘does not addressprotection of the proposed taxa.’’

Service Response: The Servicemaintains that the range managementplan does not address protection of theproposed taxa. Although the plansuggests that monitoring and studiesshould occur, the Service does notconsider potential or actual studies as amanagement action that would provideprotection for the taxa underconsideration.

Issue 9: Two commenters expressedconcern that the Service is notproposing critical habitat for the taxathat occur on Santa Rosa Island.

Service Response: The Service hasconsidered the designation of criticalhabitat for these species and determinedthat it is not prudent to establish criticalhabitat. Because of the few, smallpopulations of each of the species onFederal land, any determination ofadverse modification would also resultin jeopardy. Thus, the establishment ofcritical habitat would provide noadditional benefit over that of thejeopardy standard contained in section7 (a)(2) of the Act. Please see the‘‘Critical Habitat’’ section of this rule forfurther information.

Issue 10: One commenter suggestedthat the listing of these species willseverely limit management options.

Service Response: The Servicebelieves that an array of managementoptions are available to the NPS that areconsistent with NPS regulations, policy,and guidelines.

Issue 11: One commenter raised theconcern that the Service was required tocomply with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) andmust also prepare a Takings ImplicationAssessment, as directed by PresidentialExecutive Order 12630, before issuing afinal rule.

Service Response: NEPA is addressedunder the section entitled ‘‘NationalEnvironmental Policy Act’’ in this rule,as it was in the proposed rule. TheAttorney General has issued guidelinesto the Department of the Interior(Interior) on implementing ExecutiveOrder 12630 (Governmental Actions andInterference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights). Under theseguidelines, a special rule applies whenan agency within Interior is required bylaw to act without exercising its usualdiscretion, that is, to act solely uponspecified criteria that leave the agency

no choice. In the present context, theService’s action cannot considereconomic information in reaching alisting decision.

In such cases, the Attorney General’sguidelines state that TakingImplications Assessments (TIAs) shallbe prepared after, rather than before, theagency makes the decision in which itsdiscretion is restricted. The urpose ofthe TIAs in these special circumstancesis to inform policy makers of areaswhere unavoidable taking exposuresexist. Such TIAs must not be consideredin the making of administrativedecisions that must, by law, be madewithout regard to their economicimpact. In enacting the EndangeredSpecies Act, Congress required thatlistings be based solely on scientific andcommercial data showing whether ornot the species are in danger ofextinction. Thus, by law and by U.S.Attorney General guidelines, the Serviceis forbidden to conduct TIAs prior tolisting.

Issue 12: One commenter indicatedthat the Service must undertake a morecomprehensive study of the proposedtaxa on Santa Rosa Island.

Service Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A)of the Act requires that a listingdetermination on whether a speciesmeets the Act’s definition of athreatened or endangered species bebased on the best scientific andcommercial data available. The Servicehas considered all available informationregarding the past, present, and futurethreats faced by the taxa in this rule,including that submitted during thepublic comment periods, in making thislisting determination.

Issue 13: Two commenters inquiredabout the justification for a secondpublic comment period. One commenterstated that the Service did not have thestatutory authority to considercomments and information after thestatutory deadline for issuing a finaldetermination on the proposed plants.One commenter suggested that theService should have published a moredetailed account of the newinformation.

Service Response: The processing ofthis final rule follows the Service’slisting priority guidance published inthe Federal Register on December 5,1996 (61 FR 64475). The processing ofa final listing is a Tier 2 action underthis guidance (61 FR 64479). TheService explained in the FederalRegister notification for reopening ofthe comment period that there wassignificant new information regardingthe status of several of the taxa underconsideration for listing that may affectthe determination of their listing. The


Congressional moratorium on fundingfor final rule determinations preventedthe Service from conforming to statutorydeadlines. The Federal Register noticeprovided an opportunity for the publicto request any information that wouldassist them in preparing a response. TheService is obligated to consider the bestavailable scientific and commercialevidence in deciding whether to list aspecies.

Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies

After a thorough review andconsideration of all informationavailable, the Service has determinedthat Arabis hoffmannii (Munz) Rollins,Arctostaphylos confertiflora Eastw.,Berberis pinnata Lag. ssp. insularisMunz, Castilleja mollis Pennell, Galiumbuxifolium Greene, Gilia tenuifloraBenth. ssp. hoffmannii (Eastw.) A.D.Grant & V.E. Grant, Malacothamnusfasciculatus (Torr. & A.Gray) Greenessp. nesioticus (B.L. Rob. in A. Gray)Kearney, Malacothrix indecora Greene,Malacothrix squalida Greene, Phaceliainsularis Munz var. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus Greeneshould be classified as endangeredspecies, and that Dudleya nesioticaMoran and Helianthemum greenei B.L.Rob. in A. Gray should be classified asthreatened species. Section 4 of theEndangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part424) promulgated to implement thelisting provisions of the Act set forth theprocedures for adding species to theFederal lists. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1).

These factors and their application tothe 13 plant taxa in this rule are asfollows:

A. The Present or ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The primary threat to the speciesincluded in this rule is the ongoing lossof soils, because the soils are thefoundation for the unique islandecosystems and their endemic species.A significant increase in the rate of soilloss resulting in substantial alterationsof the natural habitats of these speciesbegan with the introduction of non-native sheep, goat, cattle, deer, elk,bison, and pigs on the various islands inthe early 1800’s. Soil erosion continuesto this day at a rate that remains anorder of magnitude greater than thatprior to the introduction of alienmammals (Cole and Liu 1994). Soil lossis a significant threat to most existing

populations of, and precludes seedlingestablishment for, Arabis hoffmannii,Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Dudleya nesiotica, Galium buxifolium,Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Helianthemum greenei, Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis var. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus.

The deep incision of many canyonson Santa Rosa Island illustrates thedramatic loss of sediment and, byinference, entire riparian systems thatare virtually absent from the island.These incised arroyos cut into fine-grained alluvium built up by thousandsof years of deposition, and thoseincisions and the sedimentation haveleft a quantitative record of the shift ingeomorphic regimes resulting from largeherbivores denuding the landscape thatcontinues today (Cole and Liu 1994).

The increased loss of soils and theconsequent changes in vegetation due tothe introduction of alien mammals havebeen documented from sediment andpollen records in a soil core dating back5,200 years from the Old Ranch Canyonmarsh on eastern Santa Rosa Island(Cole and Liu 1994). Rates ofsedimentation prior to the introductionof livestock averaged 0.7 mm/year (yr)(0.035 in/yr), increased to 23 mm/yr (0.9in/yr) during the peak sheep grazing era,and now average 13.4 mm/yr (0.13 in/yr), 19 times greater than that prior tograzing (Cole and Liu 1994).

Pollen records demonstrate that theconversion of brushland to grasslandoccurred with the onset of ranching inthe early 1800’s. This change invegetation is reflected by an increasedabundance of grass pollen and adecrease in pollen from the mint andpea families in the soil core (Cole andLiu 1994). Coastal sage scrub isdominated by sage species (mintfamily), lupines and deervetch (peafamily). Shallow rooted non-nativegrasses now dominate the island and aremuch less efficient as slope stabilizersthan the deep-rooted native shrubs theyhave replaced.

Continued grazing has prevented theability of the shrub species to recoverand reestablish their function as animportant source of erosion control.Large sediment loads remain asignificant problem as illustrated by therecent attempts to stabilize soils atJohnson’s Lee on the south side of SantaRosa Island, where rice straw wattlesplaced along hillside contours trappedlarge volumes of sediment after only oneseason of rain (Sellgren 1994).

A comparison of historicaldescriptions of island vegetation with

current conditions also indicates thatlarge-scale habitat alterations caused bylarge numbers of non-native mammalson the islands resulted in significantloss of soils as well as changes in thestructure, composition, and richness ofplant communities. In 1883, Thompsonand West described the effects of sheepgrazing on Santa Cruz Island—‘‘Theisland becomes at some timesoverstocked, and may be said to be inthat condition much of the time. Theresult is that the grasses, being croppedso close, die out, and allow the loosenedsoil to be removed by wind and rain’’(Hochberg et al. 1980a). At that time,however, vegetation elsewhere on theisland was still relatively intact; Greenedescribed mixed forests of large-leavedmaple (Acer macrophyllum), live oak(Quercus agrifolia), black cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa), and willow(Salix laevigata) thriving in the canyons(Hochberg et al. 1980a). Anotheraccount was given by DelphineAdelaide Caire in 1933, who reflectedon the conditions of Santa Cruz Island—‘‘Its present natural beauty does notcome up to that of the past. The bed ofthe stream that skirts the Main Ranch onits way from Picacho Diablo was muchnarrower than it is today; mountainslopes were heavily wooded andcenturies-old oaks were numerous. Inthe course of years, rains haveaccomplished their ruinous work,carrying off a great amount of topsoil,the innumerable trails cut by sharpsheep trotters having been acontributing factor in such devastation’’(Hochberg et al. 1980a). The historicand current presence of non-nativeherbivores and pigs has reduced leaflitter and compacted and degraded thesoil structure, resulting in acceleratedrates of erosion (Klinger et al. 1994,Nishida 1994).

The importance of soils inmaintaining habitat for the taxa is foundnot only in their physical properties, butin their biotic properties as well.Healthy soils provide habitat for acomplex assemblage of soil organisms,including fragile microbial components,that assist in such processes as water-holding capacity, soil fertility, andnutrient cycling. These processes havebeen adversely affected by the activitiesof alien mammals. For instance, the lossof leaf litter from trampling and rootingchanges soil temperatures, increases theloss of moisture, reduces the humuslayers, and results in a reduced soilfauna (Bennett 1993). Breakdown oforganic material, transport of fungalspores, and nutrient recycling by soilmites have all been documented onSanta Catalina Island (Bennett 1993).


Soil mite diversity decreased withincreased disturbance, and resulted inimpoverished nutrient levels in the soil(Bennett 1993). A feature of arid landsoils, such as those in the islands, is thepresence of a cyanobacterial-lichencrust that facilitates stabilization ofsteep slopes and nutrient cycling(Belnap 1994). These crusts areextremely brittle during the dry summermonths and can be eliminated by theshattering influences of trampling bynon-native herbivores (Belnap 1994).Mycorrhizal associations are likely tooccur with most of the species in thisrule, and may have been damaged andtherefore function at reducedefficiencies (Painter in litt. 1997). Suchassociations function as extensions ofthe root system and are of particularimportance to arid land plant speciessuch as those in this rule. Damagedmycorrhizal associations reduce thehealth and vigor of their host species.

The large herds of grazing animalsthat shatter the crustal integrity of thesoil surface also result in dust coatingthe foliage of all the native vegetation.Dust negatively affects plants byreducing photosynthesis, respiration,transpiration, and complicatingpollination efficiency (Painter in litt.1997). Intense winds blow from thenorthwest that can be highly erosive.When the integrity of the natural habitatis disturbed there is an accelerated rateof erosion above that which wouldresult from just rain alone. Noopportunity for leaf litter or soil toaccumulate exists on the exposed ridgetops with continual non-native animaldisturbance (Clark et al. 1990).

Even after the agents that initiatederosion have been removed, loss of soilscontinues (Clark et al. 1990, Halvorson1993). Because both the biotic andphysical properties of the soils havebeen degraded or lost altogether, thesoils that remain behind provide poorconditions for seedlings to germinateand establish. On Santa Rosa Island, agrove of island oaks (Quercustomentella), a species of specialconcern, has shown few signs ofregeneration on soils severely affectedby erosion even after an exclosure wasbuilt to eliminate cattle, elk, and deer(Danielsen 1989a, 1989b). The zonebelow an Arabis hoffmannii populationon Santa Rosa Island is inhospitable toseed germination because of cattletrampling and soil churning (McEachernand Wilken 1996). Seed rain from thatpopulation falls onto areas that arehighly trampled and churnedeliminating any chance for populationexpansion from its precarious clifflocation. Arabis hoffmannii ismonocarpic and damage from trampling

may delay flowering, or even precludereproduction of trampled individuals.Flowers produced later in the seasonout of synchrony with pollinatoractivity results in lower seedproductivity (Painter in litt. 1997).

Wherever shrubs of Arctostaphylosconfertiflora have been browsed to forma canopy, the understory is heavilytrampled by deer and elk and thebedrock is eroding away around theroots (McEachern 1996, McEachern andWilken 1996). The soil from around theroots of Berberis pinnata ssp. insularison Santa Rosa Island, Dudleya nesioticaon Santa Cruz Island, andMalacothamnus fasciculatus ssp.nesioticus on Santa Cruz Island, isactively eroding (Wilken in litt. 1997).Dudleya nesiotica plants at Fraser Pointon Santa Cruz Island were observed tohave been preferentially rooted by pigsin 1995 and 1996 (Painter in litt. 1997,McEachern 1996, Wilken 1996). In 1993,when perhaps as much as 20 percent ofthe Carrington Point populations ofCastilleja mollis was consumed by deer,individual plants were excavated,leaving depressions in the sandy soilswhere plants had been observed 5months earlier (Sarah Chaney, NPS,pers. comm. 1993). More recentlyresearchers have documented that bothdeer and elk are damaging bothpopulations of Castilleja mollis(McEachern 1996). Galium buxifolium isthreatened on Santa Cruz Island wheretrampling and pig rooting along theseacliffs increases the likelihood ofslope failure (Hochberg et al. 1980).Unfenced portions of Gilia tenuiflorassp. hoffmannii on Santa Rosa Island areareas where cattle concentrate andchurn the soil (Painter in litt. 1997). AllHelianthemum greenei habitat isdamaged from rooting by pigs on SantaCruz Island (Wilken in litt. 1997). Therecent discovery of Malacothrixindecora on Santa Rosa Island includedthe observation that the prehistoricmidden that the plants were growing onwas being eroded from damage bylivestock (Painter in litt. 1997).

Seabirds occur in historic habitat forMalacothrix indecora on San MiguelIsland and its offshore islet PrinceIsland, and known sites for Malacothrixsqualida on Anacapa Island. Many ofthese bird species experienced severepopulation declines in the late 1960’sand early 1970’s as a result of DDT-related reproductive failures (Ingram1992). However, monitoring resultsindicate that populations of most ofthese birds have increased over the pastdecade. Seabirds use local vegetation toconstruct nests on cliff and blufftopsites, create localized soil disturbancesthat facilitate establishment of alien

plant species, and promote erosion ofcoastal bluffs. Seabird activity has beennoted on Middle Anacapa Island withinhabitat for Malacothrix squalida (S.Junak, pers. comm. 1994). The extent towhich such localized disturbance hasaffected this plant species is unknown.

Compaction of soils and crushing ofplants by vehicle traffic is an ongoingthreat to Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii. The largest population ofGilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii isbisected by a road. Another roadcontinues to damage habitat and plantsalong the fence line established toprotect the western snowy plover;however, the proposed closure of OldRanch Pasture to cattle and horses willremove the necessity to maintain a fenceat that location (NPS 1997).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,Recreational, Scientific, or EducationalPurposes

Unrestricted collecting for scientificor horticultural purposes and excessivevisits by individuals interested in seeingrare plants constitutes a potential threatto certain of the taxa in this rule. Inparticular, the collection of wholeplants or reproductive parts of thoseannual or herbaceous perennial taxawith fewer than 100 individuals,including Arabis hoffmannii, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus, couldadversely affect the genetic viability andsurvival of those taxa. In thehorticultural trade, Dudleya specieshave, in particular, been favoritecollection items. Dudleya nesiotica,though not in the trade, has beencultivated by Dudleya enthusiasts. Thelimited distribution of this taxon,combined with the additional threatsfrom non-native annuals and pigrooting, makes it vulnerable to suchenthusiasts who want the rare speciesfrom the wild.

C. Disease or predationDiseases are not specifically known to

threaten any of the taxa included in thisrule. All of the taxa included in thisproposal, with the exception of Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, have populationsthat are subject to predation by one ormore non-native mammals. Apparently,the roots of Berberis species are oftentoxic (Williams 1993), makingconsumption by feral pigs unlikely.Island endemic plant species lackdefensive attributes as protection fromgrazing and browsing. The impact ofthis predation to the overall statusvaries by species, with predation posingthe most signficance to those with the


fewest and most accessible populations.Current research on Santa Cruz Islandhas compared similar species from themainland and from the island inlivestock feeding preferences. Livestockconsistently preferred the island plantsand the study showed that all mainlandplants possessed at least one protectivecharacteristic in higher quantity thanthe similar island taxa, the quantity ofspines being the most notable quality.The researcher stated that ‘‘[i]slandplants possessed reduced levels ofchemical defenses, morphologicaldefenses, or both, and were morevulnerable to herbivory’’ (Bowen in litt.1997).

Historical records document thatovergrazing by sheep in the late 1800’sand early 1900’s highly degraded thevegetation of Santa Rosa Island. Therecords also point out that sheep died ofstarvation due to drought on the islandduring this time. During a later droughtin 1948, the island was so overgrazedthat it made the local news, stating that‘‘[h]ardly a sprig of green is to be seen.The tiny tufts of grass that have escapedthe hungry mouths of the herd arestunted and dead. Shrubs haveperished. [There were] * * * starvedlooking valley elk * * * [and] * * *prickly pears were gnawed down to theearth.’’ (Ainsworth 1948). Drought inthe late 1980’s decimated the elkpopulation (Vail and Vickers in litt.1996). Herbivory by non-nativeherbivores continues to threaten andeffectively arrest recovery of the nativevegetation and perpetuate thedominance of non-native grasses andherbs. Native island plants evolved inthe absence of grazing and browsing andsuffer from reduced productivity andlower reproductive success due to thepresence of alien herbivores.

In 1875, when sheep stocking onSanta Cruz Island was around 50,000head, botanist J.T. Rothrock reportedthat the island was so overgrazed that‘‘it was with difficulty that I could geteven a decent botanical specimen’’(Hobbs 1983). Although sheep grazinghas been removed as a current threat onall but eastern Santa Cruz Island, thedecades of overgrazing by sheep havereduced the reproductive capabilitiesand distribution of many of the taxaincluded in this rule. A review ofliterature pertinent to effects of sheep onisland vegetation is included inHochberg et al. (1980a). In addition,feral pigs, feral goats, feral sheep, deer,elk, horses, and bison currently occur inhabitats that support some populationsof all of the taxa included in this rule.The effects of defoliation on plantsinclude decreased above groundbiomass, fewer stems, lowered seed

production, reduced height of leavesand stems, decreased root biomass,reduced root length, decreasedcarbohydrate reserves, and reducedvigor (Heady in Willoughby 1986).

Clark et al. (1990) noted that mostindividuals of Arctostaphylosconfertiflora are browsed severely by elkand deer. During a recent populationsurvey it was observed that more than90 percent of all individuals ofArctostaphylos confertiflora wereaccessible to ungulates and werebrowsed at the growing tips (McEachernand Wilken 1996). The shape ofindividual shrubs has been modified asa result of browsing. Short-staturedshrubs have been hedged to the pointthat they do not grow above a certainheight. On shrubs that attained a tallerstature before browsing pressure becamesevere, all lower limbs and leaves havebeen stripped, resulting in a ‘‘lollipop’’or tree-shaped shrub. Browsing pressureon this species appears to have affectedits ability to reproduce, since not asingle seedling was observed during a1988 survey (Ronilee Clark, CaliforniaPark Service, pers. comm., 1988). Thisspecies does not have a root crown burlthat allows some mainland species totolerate low levels of defoliation, and,without protection from non-nativemammals, continued recruitment failureand reduced vigor may provecatastrophic for this species. Thiscondition was noted in a 1989 letter toDr. Peter Raven from the leadingauthority on the genus Arctostaphylos,Dr. Phillip Wells, who expressed hisconcern that the time remaining for thegrazing operation would precipitate theextinction of Arctostaphylosconfertiflora if some protection fromnon-native mammals was notimplemented (Painter in litt., 1997).

Specific examples of browsing orgrazing by alien mammals on other taxain this rule have been observed,including Arabis hoffmannii, Castillejamollis, Dudleya nesiotica, Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Helianthemum greenei, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus (Hochberget al. 1980b, McEachern and Wilken1996, Wilken 1996, Painter in litt. 1997).

Grazing can completely eliminateplants and prevent the supplement ofseed to the seed bank. Of the sixcollections of Gilia in the herbarium atthe Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, onlythe two collections made during April1941 show no signs of browsing. Theremaining four collections were madebetween the months of May and Junebetween 1963 and 1978, and all showsigns of having been browsed(Rutherford and Thomas, in litt. 1994).In 1993, Thomas visited one Gilia

population twice. During the first visitin April, the Gilia had not beenbrowsed, but by the second visit in May,the Gilia had been browsed (Thomas, inlitt. 1993). In response to such browsing,the annual Gilia forms multiple sidebranches, and although a branchedplant may produce a greater number offlowers, this does not necessarilyincrease the fecundity of the plant(Painter and Belsky 1993). Flowersproduced later in the season out ofsynchrony with pollinator activityresults in lower seed productivity(Painter in litt. 1977).

The Nature Conservancy has beenmonitoring population sizes for Arabishoffmannii on Santa Cruz Island since1990. In 1993, only 19 individuals wereobserved in the Centinela population;this represented a net loss of 13individuals from the previous year, withmortality of nine of those plants‘‘directly attributed to pig rooting’’(Klinger 1994a).

D. The Inadequacy of ExistingRegulatory Mechanisms

Under the Native Plant Protection Act(sec. 1900 et seq. of the Fish and GameCode) and the California EndangeredSpecies Act (sec. 2050 et seq.), theCalifornia Fish and Game Commissionhas listed Dudleya nesiotica and Galiumbuxifolium as rare and Berberis pinnatassp. insularis and Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesiotica asendangered. The remaining taxaincluded in this listing proposal are onList 1B of the California Native PlantSociety’s Inventory (Smith and Berg1988), indicating that, in accordancewith sec. 1901, chapter 10 of theCalifornia Department of Fish and GameCode, they are eligible for State listing.Both the Native Plant Protection Actand the California Endangered SpeciesAct prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of State-listedplants on private and State lands, exceptunder permit (sec. 1908 and sec. 2080of the Fish and Game Code). Privatelyowned lands that support populationsof the taxa in this rule include most ofSanta Cruz Island, 90 percent of whichis owned by TNC; the remaining 10percent is owned jointly by NPS. OnSanta Catalina Island, habitat forHelianthemum greenei occurs on landmanaged by the Catalina Conservancy, aprivate conservancy owned by theCatalina Island Company. In general,these State regulatory mechanismswould not likely be invoked, becausemajor changes in land use, such asdevelopment projects, are not likely tobe proposed on these properties.

The California Fish and GameCommission (Commission) alsoregulates hunting on private and public


lands by issuing permits for the take ofa specified number of animals andtaking measures to manage herd sizes.The Commission issues permits for deerhunting on Santa Catalina Island. In1993, the Commission issued 300 tagsfor deer hunting on the island. Pigs areconsidered livestock if they are fencedor marked, but considered wild game ifthey are unfenced and unmarked. TheCatalina Island Company has enteredinto a memorandum of understanding(MOU) with CDFG to allow eradicationof feral pigs on Catalina Island (Mayer,pers. comm. 1994). A similar MOUbetween CDFG and TNC exists for theremoval of pigs from Santa Cruz Island.Bison, which occur on Santa CatalinaIsland, are considered livestock andtherefore not regulated by any agency.Apparently, the Commission has noregulatory authority over hunting orherd size of deer and elk on Santa RosaIsland, because these ungulates wereoriginally transported there under agame breeder’s permit in the early1900’s.

Several Federal laws, Interior policies,and NPS policies and guidelines applyto the management of NPS lands. Theselaws and guidelines include the NEPA,the Endangered Species Act, NPSguidelines for natural resourcesmanagement (NPS 1991), and the NPSStatement for Management (NPS 1985).The 1980 Congressional legislationenabling purchase of Santa Rosa Islandas a national park from the Vail andVickers Company stated that the owner‘‘may retain for himself a right of useand occupancy of all or such portion ofthe property as the owner may elect fora definite term of not more than twenty-five years, or ending at the death of theowner, or his spouse, whichever is later.The owner shall elect the term to bereserved. Any such right retainedpursuant to this subsection with respectto any property shall be subject totermination by the Secretary upon hisdetermination that such property isbeing used for any purpose which isincompatible with the administration ofthe park, or with the preservation of theresources therein, and it shall terminateby operation of law upon notification bythe Secretary to the holder of the rightof such determination and tendering tohim the amount equal to the fair marketvalue of that portion which remainsunexpired.’’ (Pub. L. 96–199, 94 Stat. 67,March 5, 1980). The legislation alsodirected the Secretary to complete anatural resources study within 2 yearsthat would supply an inventory of allterrestrial and marine species,indicating their population dynamics,and probable trends as to future

numbers and welfare, and torecommend action that should beadopted to better protect the naturalresources of the park.

Under the conditions of the deed ofsale, the former owners, the Vail andVickers Company, chose only to retainthe rights to occupy 3.0 ha (7.6 ac) (NPS1986). The NPS issues Special UsePermits for 5-year terms for grazing andhunting. The first Special Use Permitissued to Vail and Vickers Companyincluded a condition that a rangemanagement plan be developed within5 years. A range management plan wasadopted when the NPS issued thesecond special use permit. The plan,however, does not address protection ofthe taxa in this rule (USFWS 1991,1992, 1993).

In a recent review of the rangemanagement plan, the Service foundthat measuring residual dry matter, theidentified means of determiningappropriate stocking rates, is inadequateto monitor other important indicators ofecosystem health, includingcomposition and diversity of species,and the condition of plant species ofspecial concern (USFWS 1993). Themonitoring of sensitive resources withingrazed areas is commonly recommended(NPS 1991, Ruyle 1987, Willoughby1986), but in this case has not beenincluded in the range management plan.Currently, the condition of thevegetation on Santa Rosa Island ismonitored by assessing the residual drymatter of grassland vegetation, which iscomposed primarily of non-nativespecies (NPS 1993, NPS 1996).

The NPS has prepared a ResourceManagement Plan (Plan) for Santa RosaIsland to address water quality and rareplants (NPS 1997). The successfulimplementation of the Plan will beevaluated on a yearly basis to determinethe effects on the species in this rulethat occur on Santa Rosa Island. Whilereducing grazing and browsing, thepreferred action will allow impacts tocontinue to Arctostaphylos confertiflora,Castilleja mollis, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Malacothrix indecora, andPhacelia insularis ssp. insularis and inhistoric habitat for Arabis hoffmannii,Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis andHelianthemum greenei.

San Miguel Island and adjacent PrinceIsland (a small islet) are under thejurisdiction of the Department of theNavy (Navy), but NPS assists in themanagement of natural, historic, andscientific values of San Miguel Islandthrough a memorandum of agreement(MOA) originally signed in 1963, anamendment to this MOA signed in 1976,and a supplemental InteragencyAgreement (IA) signed in 1985. The

MOA states that the ‘‘paramount use ofthe islands and their environs shall befor the purpose of a missile test range,and all activities conducted by or inbehalf of the Department of the Interioron such islands, shall recognize thepriority of such use’’ (Department of theNavy 1963). In addition to San MiguelIsland, four other islands includingAnacapa, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz,and Santa Rosa lie wholly within theNavy’s Pacific Missile Test Center(PMTC) Sea Test Range. The 1985 IAprovides for the PMTC to have accessand use of portions of those islands, forexpeditious processing of any necessarypermits by NPS, and for mitigation ofdamage of park resources from any suchactivity (Department of the Navy 1985).Should the Navy no longer require useof the islands, NPS would seekauthorization for the islands to bepreserved and protected as units withinthe NPS system (Department of theNavy 1976). To date, conflictsconcerning protection of sensitiveresources on San Miguel Island have notoccurred. Protection and managementfor the three taxa in this rule that occuron the island, Galium buxifolium,Malacothrix squalida, and Phaceliainsularis ssp. insularis, have not beenaddressed, leaving in question whichagency has ultimate responsibility to doso.

E. Other Natural or Manmade FactorsAffecting Its Continued Existence

Over 180 non-native plant specieshave been documented from thenorthern island group, and thedisruption of native habitats anddisplacement of native species by alienplants is a major concern for naturalresource managers on the islands(Hochberg et al. 1979, Halvorson et al.1987). Numerous aggressive non-nativeplants, including Australian fireweed(Erechtites glomerata), iceplants(Carpobrotus spp., Mesembryanthemumspp.), thistles (Centaurea spp., Cirsiumspp., Silybum sp.), German-ivy (Seneciomikanoides), hoary cress (Cardariadraba), and Russian thistle (Salsolatragus) pose threats to most of the taxaaddressed in this rule.

Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) hasbecome widespread since the removal ofcattle and sheep from Santa Cruz Island.Fennel was noticed as a pest speciesprior to the removal of sheep as reportedin Hobbs (1983). Sheep kept the plantfrom growing to its full height of 2 m (6ft), and since their removal the plant has‘‘appeared’’ over large areas of theisland. When it is not grazed andcropped close to the ground, its brightgreen foliage and bright yellow flowersare very conspicuous. Several papers


were presented at a recent symposiumon techniques to control fennel (Brentonand Klinger 1994, Dash and Gliessman1994, Gliessman 1994). If leftunchecked, fennel completelydominates the habitats it occupies to theexclusion of all other species. Thisdominance may be facilitated by achemical that prevents other speciesfrom competing for occupied sites(Gliessman 1994).

Incidental introductions of seed to theChannel Islands occur continually fromwind-blown seed from the mainland,introductions from restocking of non-native animals, and seed carried onvehicles and in construction materials.Deliberate introductions of seed havealso occurred as during the 1960’s,when one pilot reported scattering bagsof commercial wildflower and grassseed on most of the northern ChannelIslands (Rutherford, in litt. 1994). Whennew introductions and established seedsources occur in areas with disturbanceresulting from grazing, browsing, androoting by non-native mammals, theinvasive species can dominate the site.Over the past decade there has been anincreasing trend in the numbers of non-native plants invading the ChannelIslands. Santa Rosa Island hasexperienced the least increase inpercentage of weed species to nativeflora ratio of any of the Channel Islandswith a 2 percent increase to 20 percent(Junak et al. 1995). Santa Cruz Islandhas at least 170 non-native plantsrecorded and Santa Rosa Island has 98non-natives (Junak et al. 1995). Theseinvasive species have a high probabilityof preventing recruitment and causinghabitat displacement of Arabishoffmannii, Castilleja mollis, Dudleyanesiotica, Galium buxifolium,Helianthemum greenei, Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus.

Many of the known pollinators on theislands are ground-nesting insects(Miller 1985, Miller and Davis 1985).Gilia tenuiflora has been reported to bepollinated by a ground nesting beefly(Oligodranes sp.) (Grant and Grant1965). The habitat of these ground-nesting insects has been and is beingdegraded by trampling and serious lossof soils to active erosion on all of theislands.

The few, small and isolatedpopulations with few individuals ofmost of these taxa increase the potentialfor their extinction from random events.One of the species in this rule, Dudleyanesiotica, is known from single apopulation. Seven other taxa in thisrule, Arabis hoffmannii, Berberis

pinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Malacothamnus fasciculatus ssp.nesioticus, Malacothrix indecora, andPhacelia insularis ssp. insularis, areknown from only two to fivepopulations. Although recent surveyswere conducted for Malacothrixsqualida and Thysanocarpusconchuliferus (S. Junak, pers. comm.1994,Wilken in litt. 1997), and theyhave not been seen in over five years,the Service believes these species arestill likely to be extant because allhistoric locations have not been recentlyvisited.

Species with few populations andindividuals are subject to the threat ofrandom events causing extinction inseveral ways. First, the loss of geneticdiversity may decrease a species’ abilityto maintain fitness within theenvironment, often manifested indepressed reproductive vigor. Fromgenetic analyses conducted for the twopopulations of Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus, (Swenson etal. 1995), it was concluded that thethree genotypes represented in each ofthe two populations ‘‘probably representonly a portion of the diversity oncepresent in var. nesioticus.’’ Elisens(1994) documented reduced levels ofgenetic diversity in Galvesia speciosa, aChannel Islands endemic species ofspecial concern, and noted that thelevels were ‘‘likely the result ofdecreased population sizes initiated byhuman activities and herbivoreintroductions.’’

Secondly, species with fewpopulations or individuals may besubject to forces that affect their abilityto complete their life cycle successfully.Arctostaphylos confertiflora, providesan excellent example of this type ofthreat. The only remaining individualsof this species are of moderate to oldage, and establishment of newindividuals is completely lacking(McEachern 1996, McEachern andWilken 1996, Wilken in litt. 1997). Theeffects of browsing animals on criticalportions of its life cycle has resulted inthe inability of Arctostaphylosconfertiflora to establish newindividuals to replenish its population.The degree of pollination success formanzanita flowers is unknown, but theabundance of alien grazing andbrowsing animals has likely depressedthe number of native pollinatorsavailable to the native plants. Even ifpollination occurs and results insuccessful fruiting, the fruits are eatenby browsing animals. Seed banks areabsent due to severe soil loss(McEachern and Wilken 1996). If thefruits escape predation and seeds do

germinate, the seedlings are eithertrampled or eaten by those sameanimals. Most of the species in this rulethat occur on Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz,and Santa Catalina Islands are likely tobe similarly affected. For Berberispinnata ssp. insularis the conspicuouslack of recruitment from seeds likelyrepresents a threat to its long-termsurvival (Wilken 1996). During the1995–1996 life history study for Arabishoffmannii there were only 11 plantsthat produced seed in three populations(Wilken in litt. 1997).

Thirdly, random natural events, suchas storms, drought, fire, or landslides,could destroy a significant percentage ofa species’ individuals, or the onlyknown extant population. Arabishoffmannii, Galium buxifolium, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus areexamples of species that could sustainlosses of individuals and populationsthrough landslides and soil sloughing asa result of storm events. If a fire wereto burn through the Arctostaphylosconfertiflora populations in its currentcondition with a highly reduced seedbank, the species would likely goextinct.

In summary, random events can affectspecies on three different levels:through loss of genetic diversity,through chance events in survival andreproduction, and through catastrophicevents. When numbers of populationsand individuals reach critically lowlevels, more than one of these threetypes of processes may combine tocause extinction. For instance, a specieswith low reproductive success due tograzing or browsing pressure during acritical portion of its life cycle maysubsequently be subject to a severedrought or storm that eliminates theremaining individuals or populations.Such random events increase thevulnerability of all of the taxa in thisrule.

The Service has carefully assessed thebest scientific and commercialinformation available regarding the past,present, and future threats faced bythese taxa in determining to make thisrule final. Based on this evaluation, theService finds that Arabis hoffmannii,Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Galium buxifolium, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus meet thedefinition of endangered species underthe Act. Threats to these 11 taxa includesoil loss, habitat alteration by mammalsalien to the Channel Islands (pigs, goats,sheep, donkeys, cattle, deer, elk, horses,


bison) and herbivory by these samealien mammals, habitat alteration bynative seabirds, habitat alteration due tovehicular traffic, and competition withalien plant taxa. The 11 taxa also havean increased vulnerability to extinctiondue to reduced genetic viability,depressed reproductive vigor, andrandom events resulting from few, smalland isolated populations with fewindividuals. Because these 11 taxa are indanger of extinction throughout all or asignificant portion of their ranges, theyfit the definition of endangered asdefined in the Act.

For the reasons discussed below, theService finds that Dudleya nesiotica andHelianthemum greenei are likely tobecome endangered in the foreseeablefuture throughout all or a significantportion of their range. Since the time theproposed rule was published, moreaccurate information on the populationstatus of Dudleya nesiotica has becomeavailable indicating that there areconsiderably more individuals thanpreviously understood and that thespecies occupies a larger area thanpreviously known. An estimated 30,000to 60,000 individuals are now known tooccur within an area of 13 ha (32 ac)(Wilken in litt. 1997). While the speciesremains vulnerable to soil loss, rootingfrom pig activity, and the possibility ofrandom events, the Service nowbelieves that the species is not inimmediate danger of extinction.Helianthemum greenei has been foundto have substantially larger populationsizes than were previously known inareas that burned in 1994, with aminimum estimate of between 500 and1,000 individuals at each of fourlocations (Wilken in litt. 1997). Thereare now 14 known locations for thistaxon with an estimated total of over3,000 individuals. While the speciesremains vulnerable to loss of soil, pigrooting, altered fire frequencies andintensities, and the possibility ofrandom events, the species is not inimmediate danger of extinction. TheService finds that Dudleya nesiotica andHelianthemum greenei meet thedefinition of threatened species underthe Act. Critical habitat is not beingproposed for these taxa for reasonsdiscussed in the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’section of this proposal.

Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined by section

3 of the Act as: (i) the specific areaswithin the geographical area occupiedby a species, at the time it is listed inaccordance with the Act, on which arefound those physical or biologicalfeatures (I) essential to the conservationof the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations orprotection and; (ii) specific areasoutside the geographical area occupiedby a species at the time it is listed, upona determination that such areas areessential for the conservation of thespecies. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the useof all methods and procedures neededto bring any protected species to thepoint at which the measures providedpursuant to the Act are no longernecessary (50 CFR 424.02(c)).

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, asamended, and implementing regulations(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to themaximum extent prudent anddeterminable, the Secretary specifycritical habitat at the time a species isproposed for listing. The Service findsthat designation of critical habitat is notprudent for Arabis hoffmannii,Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Dudleya nesiotica, Galium buxifolium,Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Helianthemum greenei, Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus at thistime. Service regulations (50 CFR424.12(a)(1)) state that designation ofcritical habitat is not prudent when oneor both of the following situations exist:(1) the species is threatened by taking orother human activity, and identificationof critical habitat can be expected toincrease the degree of such threat to thespecies, or (2) such designation ofcritical habitat would not be beneficialto the species.

Critical habitat designation for Arabishoffmannii, Arctostaphylosconfertiflora, Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis, Castilleja mollis, Dudleyanesiotica, Galium buxifolium, Giliatenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii,Helianthemum greenei, Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus, Malacothrixindecora, Malacothrix squalida,Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus is notprudent due to lack of benefit. Dudleyanesiotica, Helianthemum greenei,Malacothamnus fasciculatus ssp.nesioticus, and Thysanocarpusconchuliferus all occur on private landswhere there is unlikely to be any needfor Federal involvement under section 7of the Act. Arabis hoffmannii,Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Berberispinnata ssp. insularis, Castilleja mollis,Galium buxifolium, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii, Malacothrix indecora,Malacothrix squalida, and Phaceliainsularis ssp. insularis all either havefewer than 100 individuals or fewerthan four populations and any actionthat would adversely modify occupied

or suitable habitat that might beconsidered critical habitat would alsojeopardize the species. Therefore, thedesignation of critical habitat would notprovide any benefit to the conservationof the species beyond that afforded bylisting.

The NPS, the Department of Defense(DOD), TNC, and other pertinent partieshave been notified of the location andimportance of protecting these species’habitats. Protection of these species’habitats will be addressed through thedevelopment of a conservationagreement with the Park, the recoveryprocess, and through the section 7consultation process as a result of listingthese species. The Service believes thateffects of Federal involvement in theareas where these plants occur can beidentified without the designation ofcritical habitat. The Service finds thatdesignation of critical habitat for theseplants is not prudent at this time,because such designation would notincrease the degree of protection to thespecies beyond the protection affordedby listing.

Available Conservation MeasuresConservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered orthreatened under the Act includerecognition, recovery actions,requirements for Federal protection, andprohibitions against certain practices.Recognition through listing encouragesand results in conservation actions byFederal, State, and private agencies,groups, and individuals. The Actprovides for possible land acquisitionand cooperation with the States andrequires that recovery actions be carriedout for all listed species. The protectionrequired of Federal agencies and theprohibitions against certain activitiesinvolving listed plants are discussed, inpart, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,requires Federal agencies to evaluatetheir actions with respect to any speciesthat is listed as endangered orthreatened and with respect to itscritical habitat, if any is designated.Regulations implementing thisinteragency cooperation provision of theAct are codified at 50 CFR part 402.Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agenciesto ensure that activities they authorize,fund, or carry out are not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofsuch a species or to destroy or adverselymodify its critical habitat. If a Federalaction may affect a listed species or itscritical habitat, the responsible Federalagency must enter into formalconsultation with the Service.

The NPS has developed a ResourcesManagement Plan and Environmental


Impact Statement (EIS) for improvementof water quality and conservation of rarespecies and their habitats on Santa RosaIsland in response to a Cleanup andAbatement Order, issued by the CentralCoast Regional Water Quality ControlBoard and the proposed listing of the 16plants from the Northern ChannelIslands. The implementation of the Planis intended to improve the status of theplants in this rule; due to naturalvariability in population sizes of theannual plants in this rule, however, anyevaluation of the success ofimplementation will require at leastthree years to evaluate. For more long-lived species, even an accurateassessment of survivorship toreproductive maturity may takeconsiderably longer.

The Service and NPS have beencooperating to develop a conservationagreement (CA) in accordance with anMOU among several Federal land-managing agencies to cooperate in theconservation of species for which listingmay be appropriate (U.S. Department ofthe Interior 1994). The Service has beenworking with and advising NPS since atleast 1991 including the review of theirrange management plans effects on thespecies in this rule. The intent of the CAis to focus on the conservation needs ofthe plant and animal species of specialconcern from the northern ChannelIslands such that listing for some ofthose taxa may be avoided. The CAwould also serve as a template for thefuture development of a recoverystrategy for the 13 taxa included in thisrule.

The Service and NPS signed an MOUin 1995, for the purpose of developinga conservation strategy (CS) that wouldbe included as the basis for a portion ofthe preferred alternative for the NPSEIS. A team of biologists from threeagencies (NPS, Service, and BRD) wasassembled to prepare the CS. As a firststep in developing a CS for the northernChannel Islands, the conservation teamcompiled and reviewed availableliterature and data relevant to thesespecies and their plant communities.Two public meetings were held onSeptember 8, 1994, and January 9, 1995,to gather additional scientific data onthe species and their habitats,distributions, and threats. It was agreedthat the best strategy for recovery of thespecies would be a restoration of theecosystem processes and habitatstructures that support them. The NPSselected the CS alternative in the finalEIS (NPS 1997).

Of the 13 taxa in this rule, all exceptDudleya nesiotica, Malacothamnusfasciculatus ssp. nesioticus, andThysanocarpus conchuliferus have

populations or historical habitat locatedon Federal lands. Three of the taxa(Galium buxifolium, Malacothrixindecora, and Phacelia insularis ssp.insularis) have populations or historicalhabitat on San Miguel Island, which isowned by the Navy and managed byNPS through a MOA and IA. Navyactivities that could potentially affectthese taxa and their habitats includemilitary exercises and equipment testingand retrieval carried out under theExecutive Order that established thePMTC Sea Test Range, which includesAnacapa, San Miguel, Santa Barbara,Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa Islands andtheir environs.

Two of the taxa (Berberis pinnata ssp.insularis and Malacothrix squalida)have populations or historical habitat onAnacapa Island, which is owned andmanaged by the NPS. Eight of the 13taxa have populations or historicalhabitat on Santa Rosa Island, which isowned and managed by the NPS. Threeof those eight taxa are single islandendemics (Arctostaphylos confertiflora,Castilleja mollis, Gilia tenuiflora ssp.hoffmannii). NPS activities that couldpotentially affect these taxa and theirhabitats include specific managementplans, including those that addressexpansion of NPS facilities; expansionof visitor services; range managementplans, including those that addresscattle ranching and deer and elkhunting; alien plant removal programs;and other ecosystem restorationprograms, including prescribed firemanagement. Other activities includethe issuing of permits, including SpecialUse Permits, that authorize continuedranching and hunting operations onSanta Rosa Island. Also included arepermits that authorize activities by otheragencies or organizations, includingrights-of-way to the Department ofCommerce to access lighthouse andcommunication facilities.

As mentioned above, there are threetaxa that occur wholly on lands ownedand managed by TNC. Futuremanagement of Santa Cruz Island mayinvolve NPS as a cooperator, since theisland is within National Parkboundaries. NPS has already developeda keen interest in the conservation of thetaxa in this rule on Santa Cruz Island,and the Service would anticipatecoordination with NPS on issuesaffecting those taxa.

The Act and its implementingregulations set forth a series of generalprohibitions and exceptions that applyto all endangered plants or threatenedplants. All prohibitions of section9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, and 50CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, apply.

These prohibitions, in part, make itillegal for any person subject to thejurisdiction of the United States toimport or export, transport in interstateor foreign commerce in the course of acommercial activity, sell or offer for salein interstate or foreign commerce, orremove and reduce the species topossession from areas under Federaljurisdiction. In addition, for plantslisted as endangered, the Act prohibitsthe malicious damage or destruction onareas under Federal jurisdiction and theremoval, cutting, digging up, ordamaging or destroying of such plantsin knowing violation of any State law orregulation, including State criminaltrespass law. Certain exceptions to theprohibitions apply to agents of theService and State conservation agencies.

It is the policy of the Service,published in the Federal Register (59FR 34272) on July 1, 1994, to identifyto the maximum extent practicable atthe time a species is listed thoseactivities that would or would not belikely to constitute a violation of section9 of the Act. The intent of this policyis to clarify the potential impacts of aspecies listing on proposed and ongoingactivities within its range. Eight of the13 taxa in this final rule are known tooccur on lands under the jurisdiction ofthe NPS or DOD; an additional 4 taxahistorically occurred on these sameFederal lands, and potential habitat maystill exist. Collection, damage, ordestruction of listed species on theselands is prohibited. However,authorization to incidentally remove ordestroy such species on Federal landsmay be granted by the Fish and WildlifeService for any otherwise legal actionfunded, authorized, or implemented bya Federal agency through section 7 ofthe Act. The removal and reduction topossession of listed species on Federallands for research activities may beauthorized by the Service under section10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Section 9 of the Act prohibitsremoval, cutting, digging up, damaging,or destroying endangered plants onFederal or non-Federal lands inknowing violation of any law orregulation of any State or in the courseof any violation of a State criminaltrespass law. As an example, ifindividuals of an endangered plantspecies were grazed or trampled bycattle while the livestock weretrespassing on either Federal or non-Federal land, a violation of section 9may exist. However, if the livestockgrazing occurred under the authority ofa local permit on non-Federal land orunder a section 7 consultation onFederal land, section 9 would not beviolated. Questions regarding whether


specific activities would constitute aviolation of section 9 should be directedto the Field Supervisor of the Service’sVentura Field Office (see ADDRESSESsection).

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63for endangered plants and 50 CFR 17.72for threatened plants also provide forthe issuance of permits to carry outotherwise prohibited activitiesinvolving endangered or threatenedplants under certain circumstances.Such permits are available for scientificpurposes and to enhance thepropagation or survival of the species.For threatened plants, permits also areavailable for botanical or horticulturalexhibition, educational purposes, orspecial purposes consistent with thepurposes of the Act. Requests for copiesof the regulations regarding listedspecies and inquiries about prohibitionsand permits may be addressed to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E.11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–4181 (telephone 503/231–2063,facsimile 503/231–6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service hasdetermined that EnvironmentalAssessments and Environmental ImpactStatements, as defined under theauthority of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969, need not beprepared in connection with regulationsadopted pursuant to section 4(a) of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended. A notice outlining theService’s reasons for this determinationwas published in the Federal Registeron October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined thisregulation under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 and found it tocontain no information collectionrequirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references citedherein is available upon request fromthe Ventura Field Office (seeADDRESSES section).

Authors: The primary authors of thisfinal rule are Tim Thomas and Connie

Rutherford, botanists, Ventura FieldOffice (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements,Transportation.

Regulations PromulgationAccordingly, the Service amends part

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, as setforth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended byadding the following, in alphabeticalorder under FLOWERING PLANTS, tothe List of Endangered and ThreatenedPlants to read as follows:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.* * * * *

(h) * * *

SpeciesHistoric range Family Status When listed Critical

habitatSpecialrulesScientific name Common name

* * * * * * *Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *Arabis hoffmannii ..... Hoffman’s rockcress U.S.A. (CA) ............. Brassicaceae—Mus-

tard.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Arctostaphylos

confertiflora.Santa Rosa Island

manzanita.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Ericaceae—

Manzanita.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Berberis pinnata ssp.

insularis.Island barberry ........ U.S.A. (CA) ............. Berberidaceae—

Barberry.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Castilleja mollis ........ Soft-leaved Indian

paintbrush.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Scrophularia- ...........

ceae—Figwort .........E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Dudleya nesiotica .... Santa Cruz Island

dudleya.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Crassulaceae—

Stonecrop.T 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Galium buxifolium .... Island bedstraw ....... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Rubiaceae—Bed-

straw.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Gilia tenuiflora ssp.

hoffmannii.Hoffmann’s gilia ...... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Polemoniaceae—

Phlox.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Helianthemum

greenei.Island rush rose ...... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Asteraceae—Aster .. T 623 NA NA


SpeciesHistoric range Family Status When listed Critical

habitatSpecialrulesScientific name Common name

* * * * * * *Malacothamnus

fasciculatus ssp.nesioticus.

Santa Cruz Islandbush-mallow.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Malvaceae—Mallow E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Malacothrix indecora Santa Cruz Island

malacothrix.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Asteraceae—Aster .. E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Malacothrix squalida Island malacothrix ... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Asteraceae—Aster .. E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Phacelia insularis

ssp. insularis.Island phacelia ........ U.S.A. (CA) ............. Hydrophylla- ............

ceae—Waterleaf .....E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *Thysanocarpus

conchuliferus.Santa Cruz Island

lacepod.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Brassicaceae—Mus-

tard.E 623 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: July 24, 1997John G. Rogers,Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.[FR Doc. 97–20133 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961107312–7012–02; I.D.072597A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive EconomicZone Off Alaska; Species in the RockSole/Flathead Sole/‘‘Other Flatfish’’Fishery Category by Vessels UsingTrawl Gear in Bering Sea and AleutianIslands

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directedfishing for species in the rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fisherycategory by vessels using trawl gear inthe Bering Sea and Aleutian Islandsmanagement area (BSAI). This action isnecessary to prevent exceeding the 1997Pacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery category.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska localtime (A.l.t.), July 25, 1997, until 2400hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary Furuness, 907–586-7228.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thegroundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusiveeconomic zone is managed by NMFSaccording to the Fishery ManagementPlan for the Groundfish Fishery of theBering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area(FMP) prepared by the North PacificFishery Management Council underauthority of the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governedby regulations implementing the FMP atsubpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50CFR part 679.

The 1997 halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the BSAI trawl rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fisherycategory, which is defined at§ 679.21(e)(3)(iv)(B)(2), was establishedby the Final 1997 Harvest Specificationsfor Groundfish of the BSAI (62 FR 7168,February 18, 1997) as 795 metric tons.

In accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(iv),the Administrator, Alaska Region,NMFS, has determined that the 1997Pacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery in the BSAIhas been caught. Consequently, NMFSis closing directed fishing for species inthe rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘otherflatfish’’ fishery category by vesselsusing trawl gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amountsmay be found in the regulations at§ 679.20(e) and (f).

ClassificationThis action responds to the best

available information recently obtainedfrom the fishery. It must beimplemented immediately to preventoverharvesting the 1997 Pacific halibutbycatch allowance specified for thetrawl rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘otherflatfish’’ fishery in the BSAI. Providingprior notice and an opportunity forpublic comment on this action isimpracticable and contrary to publicinterest. The fleet will soon take thePacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery in the BSAI.Further delay would only result inoverharvest and disrupt the FMP’sobjective of allowing incidental catch tobe retained throughout the year. NMFSfinds for good cause that theimplementation of this action cannot bedelayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effectivedate is hereby waived.

This action is required by 50 CFR679.21 and is exempt from review underE.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.Dated: July 25, 1997.

Bruce Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 97–20097 Filed 7-25-97; 4:44 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

40954 federal register /vol. 62, no. 147/thursday, july 31 ... · 40954 federal register/vol. 62,...

Documents