Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE80

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Threatened Status for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes

threatened status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa

Cruz tarplant). It is threatened by alteration and destruction of

habitat due to historical and ongoing urban and commercial development,

habitat alteration due to cattle grazing, limited success of seed

transplant populations, and competition from non-native plants. This

proposed rule, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to this

plant. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this

proposed rule.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 29,

1998. Public hearing requests must be received by May 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz, Assistant Field Supervisor,

Listing and Recovery, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone number 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

93003.

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz, Assistant Field Supervisor,

Listing and Recovery, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone number 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) was first recognized by

Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle, who published the name Hemizonia

macradenia in 1836 (Ferris 1960). In 1897, E. L. Greene referred the

species to the genus Holocarpha with publication of the new combination

Holocarpha macradenia (DC.) E. Greene (Ferris 1960). This name has

continued to be recognized in the most recent treatment for the genus

(Keil 1993).

Holocarpha macradenia, an aromatic annual herb in the aster

(Asteraceae) family, is one of only four species of Holocarpha, all of

which are restricted to California. The genus name is derived from the

Greek holos for whole and karphos for chaff, referring to the scales

found among the florets on the receptacle (the structure that supports

the florets in the daisy-like flower head). The plant is rigid with

lateral branches that arise to the height of the main stem which is 1

to 5 decimeters (dm) (4 to 20 inches (in)) tall. The lower leaves are

broadly linear and up to 12 centimeters (cm) (5 in) long; the upper

leaves are smaller, with rolled back margins, and are truncated by a

distinctive craterform gland. The yellow flower head is surrounded from

beneath by bracts that each have about 25 stout gland-tipped

projections (Keil 1993). Holocarpha macradenia is distinguished from

other members of the genus by its numerous ray flowers and its black

anthers.

Historically, habitat for Holocarpha macradenia consisted of

grasslands and prairies found on coastal terraces below 100 meters (m)

(330 feet (ft)) in elevation, from Monterey County north to Marin

County

hat each have about 25 stout gland-tipped

projections (Keil 1993). Holocarpha macradenia is distinguished from

other members of the genus by its numerous ray flowers and its black

anthers.

Historically, habitat for Holocarpha macradenia consisted of

grasslands and prairies found on coastal terraces below 100 meters (m)

(330 feet (ft)) in elevation, from Monterey County north to Marin

County. In the Santa Cruz area, the gently sloping terrace platforms

are separated by steep-sided ``gulches,'' whereas in the Watsonville

area (Monterey County) and on the east side of San Francisco Bay, the

terraces are more extensively dissected, and Holocarpha macradenia

populations occur on alluvium derived from the terrace deposits (Palmer

1986). The soils are typically sandy clay soils; the clay component of

these soils holds moisture long into the growing season. The coastal

prairie habitat, found from Monterey Bay and northward, is becoming

increasingly fragmented and restricted in distribution. Historically,

four major factors contributed to changes in the distribution and

composition of coastal prairies--the introduction of highly

competitive, non-native species; an increase in grazing pressures; the

elimination of annual fires; and cultivation (Heady et al.1988).

Santa Cruz tarplant is most frequently associated with grasses;

non-native grasses include wild oats (Avena fatua), Mediterranean

barley (Hordeum hystrix), and bromes (Bromus sp.). Native associates

include needlegrass (Nassela sp.), California oatgrass (Danthonia

californica), and herbaceous species, including other tarplants

(Hemizonia sp.). At some locations, the plant is found with species of

concern, including Gairdner's yampah

ociated with grasses;

non-native grasses include wild oats (Avena fatua), Mediterranean

barley (Hordeum hystrix), and bromes (Bromus sp.). Native associates

include needlegrass (Nassela sp.), California oatgrass (Danthonia

californica), and herbaceous species, including other tarplants

(Hemizonia sp.). At some locations, the plant is found with species of

concern, including Gairdner's yampah

(Perideridia gairdneri), San Francisco popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys

diffusus), Santa Cruz clover (Trifolium buckwestiorum), and the Ohlone

tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone) (California Natural Diversity Data Base

(CNDDB) 1997).

Historically, Holocarpha macradenia was known from ``low dry fields

about San Francisco Bay'' (Jepson 1925). Around the San Francisco Bay,

herbarium collections were made from Tamalipas in Marin County in 1934;

from near Berkeley, Oakland, and San Lorenzo in Alameda County as early

as 1894; and from Pinole in Contra Costa County (CNDDB 1997, Specimen

Management System for California Herbaria (SMASCH) 1997). All of the

native San Francisco Bay area populations have been extirpated; the

last remaining native population, known as the Pinole Vista population,

consisting of 10,000 plants, was eliminated in 1993 by a commercial

development (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1997).

By 1959, Munz (1959) also noted it from Santa Cruz County, but

added that the plant was possibly extinct. However, numerous

collections were made from the Monterey Bay area in Santa Cruz County

in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In 1966 and 1969, Hoover made the

first collections in northern Monterey County, just south of the Santa

Cruz County line (SMASCH 1997). Additional populations were found in

Monterey County in the subsequent decades, although the lack of

specific locational information on herbarium labels makes it difficult

to determine exactly how many populations occurred there

ered from Watsonville Airport to Hall Road, eight

kilometers (km) (five miles (mi)) to the south-southeast. The names of

the six populations are given here, followed by the population size and

(in parentheses) the year of the most recent survey--Watsonville

Airport, 240,000 (1994); Harkins Slough, 15,000 (1993); Apple Hill, 700

(1995); Struve Slough, 1 (1994); Spring Hills Golf Course, 4,000

(1990); Porter Ranch, 3,200 (1993).

The other six extant populations of Holocarpha macradenia are a

result of experimental seed transplants in Wildcat Regional Park in the

east San Francisco Bay area. The names of the six populations are given

here, followed by the population size; surveys were most recently

completed in 1997--Big Belgum, 148; Big Belgum West, 51; Upper Belgum,

22; Mezue, 5,000'7,000; Fowler, 22; Upper Havey, 17 (Olsen et al.

1997).

Holocarpha macradenia is threatened primarily by historic and

current habitat alteration and destruction caused by residential

development. Destruction of habitat may also result from recreational

development, airport expansion, and agriculture. Even where occupied

habitat has been set aside in preserves, conservation easements, and

open spaces, the plant suffers secondary impacts from that development,

such as casual use by residents, children, and pets, the inadvertent

introduction of non-native species into tarplant habitat, and changes

in hydrology resulting from adjacent residential use. Santa Cruz

tarplant is also threatened by competition with non-native species

including a variety of grass species, French broom (Genista

monspessulana), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), acacia (Acacia decurrens,

A. melanoxylon), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) that are

favored by historic disturbances such as cattle grazing. This species

is also threatened by naturally occurring events due to the small

numbers of individuals and limited area occupied by many of the

populations.

Previous Federal Action

h broom (Genista

monspessulana), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), acacia (Acacia decurrens,

A. melanoxylon), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) that are

favored by historic disturbances such as cattle grazing. This species

is also threatened by naturally occurring events due to the small

numbers of individuals and limited area occupied by many of the

populations.

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on this plant began when the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act, prepared

a report on those native U.S. plants considered to be endangered,

threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report (House Doc.

No. 94-51), was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included

Holocarpha macradenia as endangered. On July 1, 1975, the Service

published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the

report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section

4(b)(3)) of the Act and of the Service's intention thereby to review

the status of the plant taxa named therein. On June 16, 1976, the

Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523)

to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be

endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Holocarpha

macradenia was included in the June 16, 1976 Federal Register document.

In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over two

years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those

proposals already more than 2 years old. Subsequently, on December 10,

1979, the Service published a notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal of

the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made

final, along with four other proposals that had expired. The Service

published an updated notice of review for plants on December 15, 1980

(45 FR 82480). This notice included Holocarpha macradenia as a category

1 candidate (species for which data in the Service's possession was

sufficient to support proposals for listing)

l of

the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made

final, along with four other proposals that had expired. The Service

published an updated notice of review for plants on December 15, 1980

(45 FR 82480). This notice included Holocarpha macradenia as a category

1 candidate (species for which data in the Service's possession was

sufficient to support proposals for listing).

On February 15, 1983, the Service published a notice (48 FR 6752)

of its prior finding that the listing of Holocarpha macradenia was

warranted but precluded in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of

the Act as amended in 1982. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the

Act, this finding must be recycled annually, until the species is

either proposed for listing, or the petitioned action is found to be

not warranted. Each October from 1983 through 1990 further findings

were made that the listing of Holocarpha macradenia was warranted, but

that the listing of this species was precluded by other pending

proposals of higher priority.

Holocarpha macradenia continued to be included as a category 1

candidate in plant notices of review published September 27, 1985 (50

FR 39526), February 1, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR

51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996 notice of review (61

FR 7596), the Service ceased using category designations and included

Holocarpha macradenia as a candidate. Candidate species are those for

which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as

threatened or endangered. The 1997 notice of review, published

September 19 (62 FR 49398) retained Holocarpha macradenia as a

candidate, with a listing priority of 2.

y designations and included

Holocarpha macradenia as a candidate. Candidate species are those for

which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as

threatened or endangered. The 1997 notice of review, published

September 19 (62 FR 49398) retained Holocarpha macradenia as a

candidate, with a listing priority of 2.

The processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's

final listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on

December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475), and extended on October 23, 1997 (62 FR

55268). The guidance clarified the order in which the Service processed

rulemakings during fiscal year 1997. The guidance called for giving

highest priority (Tier 1) to handling emergency situations, second

highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the conservation status of

outstanding proposed listings, and third priority (Tier 3) to new

proposals to add species to the lists of threatened and endangered

plants and animals. This proposed rule constitutes a Tier 3 action. The

1997 listing priority guidance remains in effect pending the

publication of the Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 1998/FY 1999.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50

CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to

be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to Holocarpha macradenia are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

implement the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to

be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to Holocarpha macradenia are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

Urbanization has been responsible for severely reducing the extent

of coastal prairie habitat that supports Holocarpha macradenia. All

native populations of Holocarpha macradenia have been extirpated from

Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin counties around the San Francisco Bay

(CDFG 1997a). Habitat for the last naturally occurring population in

the San Francisco Bay area, near Pinole in Contra Costa County, was

converted to a shopping center in 1993 (CDFG 1997a, CNDDB 1997). The

only populations that persist in this area are six populations that

were transplanted as seed into Wildcat Canyon Regional Park in Contra

Costa County.

Since Holocarpha macradenia was listed as endangered by the State

of California in 1979, the (CDFG) has been tracking the status of its

populations. Because locality information on historical collections is

often general, it is difficult to assess the total number of historical

populations. However, CDFG has determined that the plant has been

extirpated from nine locations around the Monterey Bay since 1979 (CDFG

1993, CNDDB 1997). Most recently, a population at what was referred to

as the Anna Street site in Watsonville was destroyed sometime after a

1992 survey, during construction of office buildings and a parking lot

(CDFG 1995a, CNDDB 1997).

In the last four years, increasing concern over the loss of

tarplant habitat and populations have led certain permitting agencies

to require conservation of remaining habitat during review of

development projects. Because of this, the rate of habitat destruction

has been slowed

sometime after a

1992 survey, during construction of office buildings and a parking lot

(CDFG 1995a, CNDDB 1997).

In the last four years, increasing concern over the loss of

tarplant habitat and populations have led certain permitting agencies

to require conservation of remaining habitat during review of

development projects. Because of this, the rate of habitat destruction

has been slowed. However, direct impacts and alteration through

secondary effects of development threaten the remaining habitat and

populations. In many cases, historical alteration of habitat has been

exacerbated by current human activities. A detailed description of the

12 remaining native sites is given here. Because the six seed

transplant sites in Contra Costa County are not sites where the plant

was known to be native, the threats to those sites are discussed under

``Factor E.''

The Graham Hill Road site is owned by the Cowell Foundation. An

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved by the County of Santa

Cruz in 1996 for a development that comprises 52 residences, a fire

station, a common area, a park, and an equestrian facility and trails

on a 170-acre parcel (Environmental Science Associates 1996). The

developer has proposed to include 0.5 acre of occupied tarplant habitat

and 10 acres of coastal prairie habitat within a 17-acre conservation

easement. In addition to Santa Cruz tarplant, other species of concern

occur here, including Gairdner's yampah, San Francisco popcorn flower,

and Santa Cruz clover. In 1994, there were five colonies of tarplant,

occupying less than one acre of habitat. One colony supported 10,000

individuals and the other four collectively supported 2,000

individuals. To date, the development has not proceeded because the

developer has been unable to negotiate a necessary sewage treatment

connection with the City of Scotts Valley. The property and attendant

EIR are currently for sale

were five colonies of tarplant,

occupying less than one acre of habitat. One colony supported 10,000

individuals and the other four collectively supported 2,000

individuals. To date, the development has not proceeded because the

developer has been unable to negotiate a necessary sewage treatment

connection with the City of Scotts Valley. The property and attendant

EIR are currently for sale. French broom has invaded the coastal

prairie habitat and is considered a threat to all four of the plant

species of concern, including Santa Cruz tarplant (Environmental

Science Associates 1995). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this

site by development, competition with non-native plants, and

vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the small extent of

occupied habitat (also see Factor E).

The Twin Lakes site is owned by the California Department of Parks

and Recreation (CDPR). The site has been fragmented by an access road

for park vehicles and several hiking paths. The population occupies

less than 1 acre and has declined as follows--120 individuals in 1986,

fewer than 10 in 1994, 1 in 1996, and 0 in 1997. The decline has been

attributed to competition from French broom and non-native grasses

(CDFG 1995a; G. Gray, ecologist, CDPR, pers. comm. 1997). In the last

three years, CDPR has made progress in removing broom from the site.

They also have experimented with management actions that would enhance

habitat for Holocarpha macradenia through mowing, raking, simulating

cattle hoof action with wood blocks, and burning. The population,

however, has continued to decline. In 1997, CDPR committed significant

funding to continue with experimental management actions (G. Gray,

pers. comm. 1997). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by

competition with non-native plants, and vulnerability to naturally

occurring events due to the small population size and small extent of

occupied habitat (also see Factor E)

population,

however, has continued to decline. In 1997, CDPR committed significant

funding to continue with experimental management actions (G. Gray,

pers. comm. 1997). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by

competition with non-native plants, and vulnerability to naturally

occurring events due to the small population size and small extent of

occupied habitat (also see Factor E).

The Arana Gulch population is on a 63-acre parcel of land owned and

managed by the City of Santa Cruz (City). In the late 1980s, the

population comprised about 100,000 individuals. Grazing by cattle was

terminated in 1988, and over the next few years, population sizes

decreased due to competition with non-native grasses. In 1993, the

population was down to 133 individuals, and in 1994, no individuals

were seen. In 1994, the City acquired the parcel from a private

landowner. The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with CDFG in 1997 to focus on management actions that would enhance the

four colonies, which cover approximately 5 acres within a 17-acre

management area (CDFG 1997b). Management actions begun in 1995 included

mowing, raking, hoeing, and mechanical scraping of the habitat. In

1997, when the population comprised about 20,000 individuals, the

highest density of tarplant was on a portion of the habitat that had

accidentally burned (K. Lyons, consultant, pers. comm. 1997). The City

is proposing to construct a bicycle path that would bisect the

management area (Brady and Associates, Inc. 1997). Direct impacts to

occupied Santa Cruz tarplant habitat would be avoided, but secondary

impacts associated with increased recreational use may make management

more difficult. Holocarpha macradenia

itat that had

accidentally burned (K. Lyons, consultant, pers. comm. 1997). The City

is proposing to construct a bicycle path that would bisect the

management area (Brady and Associates, Inc. 1997). Direct impacts to

occupied Santa Cruz tarplant habitat would be avoided, but secondary

impacts associated with increased recreational use may make management

more difficult. Holocarpha macradenia

is threatened on this site by development and competition with non-

native plants (also see Factor E).

The O'Neill/Tan Ranch population straddles the boundary of two

parcels.

The O'Neill Ranch property is owned by the County Redevelopment

Agency (CRA). In 1996, the County approved development of the 100-acre

property into a county park. The tarplant is located in the upper

reaches of the park where past recreational use has consisted of

occasional hiking. A park management plan is currently being developed,

and will include the population of tarplant in a 15-acre conservation

easement which is zoned for ``passive recreation.'' The plan may

recommend fencing around 1 acre of tarplant habitat in lieu of trying

to restrict hikers to designated trails (S. Gilchrist, CRA, pers. comm.

1997). Although the site receives light use currently, development of

the Tan property will allow easier access to a larger number of people.

The County hopes to establish a cooperative management strategy with

the developers to address management of this population. The size of

the Holocarpha macradenia population has fluctuated since 1979 as

follows--between 100 to 200 plants (1979); 0 (1984); 0 (1985); 170

e site receives light use currently, development of

the Tan property will allow easier access to a larger number of people.

The County hopes to establish a cooperative management strategy with

the developers to address management of this population. The size of

the Holocarpha macradenia population has fluctuated since 1979 as

follows--between 100 to 200 plants (1979); 0 (1984); 0 (1985); 170

(1986); 0 (1990); 170 (1991) and 2 (1993) (Brady and Associates 1995).

Santa Cruz clover and Gairdner's yampah are two sensitive species that

occur with the tarplant at this site.

The size of the Holocarpha macradenia population on the Tan parcel

is difficult to determine, as historic surveys did not count

individuals separately from those on the O'Neill parcel. However,

because the total number of individuals in the entire population has

never been larger than 200, it can be inferred that the Tan parcel

supported only a portion of these. In 1996, only one tarplant

individual was seen (Val Haley, consultant, in litt. 1997); in 1997 no

individuals were seen (K. Lyons, pers. comm. 1997). The coastal prairie

habitat on this parcel also supports Gairdner's yampah and Santa Cruz

clover, both species of concern.

The 106-acre Tan property is privately owned, and was approved for

development of 28 residential units in 1997. The habitat mitigation

plan for the development calls for the inclusion of approximately 0.4

acres that support tarplant in a 10.5-acre conservation parcel that

will be managed by the homeowner's association (HRG 1996). The plan

also includes management prescriptions for the conservation parcel,

including mowing, weed control, fencing, and removal of invasive non-

native plants. Invasive non-native plants in the vicinity of the

tarplant include French broom, rattlesnake grass (Briza sp.), and

eucalyptus (HRG 1996)

a 10.5-acre conservation parcel that

will be managed by the homeowner's association (HRG 1996). The plan

also includes management prescriptions for the conservation parcel,

including mowing, weed control, fencing, and removal of invasive non-

native plants. Invasive non-native plants in the vicinity of the

tarplant include French broom, rattlesnake grass (Briza sp.), and

eucalyptus (HRG 1996). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on the

combined O'Neill/Tan site by development, competition with non-native

plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the

small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also see

Factor E).

The Winkle Avenue site is privately owned. Part of the tarplant

population at this site was destroyed by two phases of a residential

development in 1986, and part of the remaining parcel was placed in a

``temporary open space easement'' (Strelow Consulting 1997). However,

the remaining 58-acre parcel is now also being proposed for development

of 21 residential units (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1997).

Approval by the County of Santa Cruz is pending; the planning

department will recommend that the development be limited to 10

residential units, with the remaining 11 lots to be placed in a

preservation easement (K. Tschantz, County of Santa Cruz Planning

Department, pers. comm. 1997, CDFG in litt. 1997). In 1993, the

tarplant population consisted of approximately 100 plants covering 174

square feet (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc 1997); in 1994, none were

seen (CDFG 1995). In addition to development, the population on this

site has been subject to competition with French broom and non-native

grasses. This site also supports populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle

and Gairdner's yampah, both species of concern

ant population consisted of approximately 100 plants covering 174

square feet (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc 1997); in 1994, none were

seen (CDFG 1995). In addition to development, the population on this

site has been subject to competition with French broom and non-native

grasses. This site also supports populations of the Ohlone tiger beetle

and Gairdner's yampah, both species of concern. Holocarpha macradenia

is threatened on this site by development, competition with non-native

plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to the

small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also see

Factor E).

The Fairway Drive site is privately owned. In 1989, the 30-acre

parcel supported a population of approximately 5,000 plants on less

than one acre. At the time, the site was considered a ``well preserved

fragment of native grassland'' that supported native bunchgrasses

(California oatgrass and purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra)) as well

as several species of concern, including Gairdner's yampah and San

Francisco popcorn flower (CNDDB 1997). Grazing by horses ceased in that

year. In 1993, the population was approximately 1,500 plants (CDFG

1995a, Greening Associates 1995); the decline has been attributed to

cessation of grazing. Several woody non-native species, including

French broom, acacia, pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and eucalyptus

(Eucalyptus globulus), have invaded the grasslands and are rapidly

spreading. In 1996, the County approved a lot split into four parcels,

with the condition that the coastal terrace prairie habitat be placed

in a preservation easement of approximately 15 acres, and a management

plan be developed and implemented (K. Tschantz, pers. comm. 1997).

Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by competition with

non-native plants and by its vulnerability to naturally occurring

events due to small population size and small extent of occupied

habitat (also see Factor E)

ce prairie habitat be placed

in a preservation easement of approximately 15 acres, and a management

plan be developed and implemented (K. Tschantz, pers. comm. 1997).

Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this site by competition with

non-native plants and by its vulnerability to naturally occurring

events due to small population size and small extent of occupied

habitat (also see Factor E).

Around the city of Watsonville, six native populations of Santa

Cruz tarplant are scattered from Watsonville Airport to Hall Road,

eight kilometers (km) (five mi) to the south-southeast. The Watsonville

Airport site, owned by the City of Watsonville, supports the largest

population of Santa Cruz tarplant. In 1993, the population was

estimated to be 459,000 plants; in 1994, it was estimated to be 240,000

plants (CNDDB 1997). Portions of the 37-acre site are grazed, and other

portions are mowed several times between late spring and late summer.

This management appears to have benefitted the Santa Cruz tarplant by

reducing competition from non-native species. In 1994, the City

released an initial study for proposed clay mining and a 20-year

airport expansion plan. Both activities would potentially reduce

tarplant habitat (Denise Duffy & Associates 1994). Since then, the

proposal to mine clay has been removed from consideration due to

permitting complications. CDFG has been working with City

representatives to formalize an agreement to use ongoing management

activities to enhance tarplant habitat, but a final agreement has not

been reached. CDFG has also been working with City representatives to

develop a strategy to phase airport expansion over a number of years so

that loss of tarplant habitat would be minimized. Holocarpha macradenia

is threatened on this site by development and competition with non-

native plants (also see Factor E).

The Harkins Slough site is privately owned

itat, but a final agreement has not

been reached. CDFG has also been working with City representatives to

develop a strategy to phase airport expansion over a number of years so

that loss of tarplant habitat would be minimized. Holocarpha macradenia

is threatened on this site by development and competition with non-

native plants (also see Factor E).

The Harkins Slough site is privately owned. In 1993, the population

consisted of about 15,000 plants in two colonies, one covering 1 acre,

and the other 0.1 acre in size. Cattle grazing was discontinued in

1990. Current uses of the property include fava bean production. Due to

limited access to the property, the current status of the population is

unknown. In anticipation of developing residences and a golf course,

the owners requested that the

property be annexed to the City of Watsonville in 1997. However, due to

the public's concern over the loss of prime agricultural land in the

area, the city council turned down the request. In 1997, CDFG

approached the owners with a proposal to assist in conservation

efforts; no agreements have been reached yet. Holocarpha macradenia is

threatened on this site by vulnerability to naturally occurring events

due to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat

(see Factor E) and possibly by development.

The Apple Hill site is owned by the California Department of

Transportation (CALTRANS). The population used to comprise three

colonies, but two were extirpated by construction of a housing

development on the adjacent private property. The remaining colony

occurs in a strip between the development and Highway 152; the strip

has been used as a play area for local children and pets, a repository

for yard waste, and as a short-cut to the local market (CDFG 1994; G.

Smith, resource ecologist, CDPR, pers. comm 1997). CALTRANS had

proposed moving a fence along the highway such that it would offer

additional protection to the remaining colony

colony

occurs in a strip between the development and Highway 152; the strip

has been used as a play area for local children and pets, a repository

for yard waste, and as a short-cut to the local market (CDFG 1994; G.

Smith, resource ecologist, CDPR, pers. comm 1997). CALTRANS had

proposed moving a fence along the highway such that it would offer

additional protection to the remaining colony. However, due to internal

reorganization and changes in staffing within CALTRANS, this action has

not been taken yet (G. Ruggerone, CALTRANS, pers. comm. 1997). The

population size has fluctuated between 4,000 in 1986 down to 81 in

1994. In the most recent count in 1995, the population supported 700

individuals (CNDDB 1997). Holocarpha macradenia is threatened on this

site by development and by vulnerability to naturally occurring events

due to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat

(also see Factor E).

The Struve Slough site is privately owned. In the late 1980s, it

supported one of the largest populations of Santa Cruz tarplant,

occupying 4 acres and comprising 400,000 plants in 1989 (CDFG 1995).

However, cattle grazing on the site was terminated in 1989, and since

then, the population size has dropped precipitously. The site is now

dominated by non-native wild oat (Avena sp.), prickly lettuce (Picrus

echioides), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), which outcompete the

tarplant (CDFG 1995). By 1993 and 1994, only one tarplant individual

was observed. The Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma

macrodactylum croceum), a federally endangered species, has also been

documented from this site. An EIR for a housing development at this

site was approved by the City of Watsonville in 1992. However, a

requirement to add a fire road, which would cross regulated wetlands,

has held up the development. A revised EIR is due to be released soon.

The CDFG has expressed an interest in enlisting the property owners in

conservation efforts, but no agreements have yet been reached (D

m this site. An EIR for a housing development at this

site was approved by the City of Watsonville in 1992. However, a

requirement to add a fire road, which would cross regulated wetlands,

has held up the development. A revised EIR is due to be released soon.

The CDFG has expressed an interest in enlisting the property owners in

conservation efforts, but no agreements have yet been reached (D.

Hillyard, plant ecologist, CDFG, pers. comm. 1997). Holocarpha

macradenia is threatened on this site by development, competition with

non-native plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due

to the small population size and small extent of occupied habitat (also

see Factor E).

The Spring Hills Golf Course (Course) site is privately owned. In

1989, Santa Cruz tarplant was observed growing in five separate

colonies scattered over 13 acres in unlandscaped patches between the

course's fairways. The distribution of the colonies suggests that

additional habitat for the tarplant was altered by conversion to

fairway. In 1989 and 1990, the largest colony supported 2,000 to 3,000

plants, and the other four colonies supported between 100 and 400

plants each (CNDDB 1997). The tarplant was last observed at this site

in 1995; at that time, no population size estimates were made, but it

appeared that all colonies were still present (B. Davilla, pers. comm.

1997). In 1997, CDFG approached representatives of the Course and

expressed an interest in enlisting them in conservation efforts. To

date, however, no agreements have been made (D. Hillyard, pers. comm.

1997). The threats to Holocarpha macradenia on this site are uncertain.

The Porter Ranch site is privately owned. Taylor noted that this

site is unusual in that the Holocarpha macradenia population is

primarily in the bottom of a small canyon, rather than on the adjacent

terrace or upper slope (Taylor 1990). The population is scattered over

approximately 10 acres

de (D. Hillyard, pers. comm.

1997). The threats to Holocarpha macradenia on this site are uncertain.

The Porter Ranch site is privately owned. Taylor noted that this

site is unusual in that the Holocarpha macradenia population is

primarily in the bottom of a small canyon, rather than on the adjacent

terrace or upper slope (Taylor 1990). The population is scattered over

approximately 10 acres. Between 1984 and 1993, population sizes

fluctuated between 1,500 plants in 1984 and 43,000 in 1989 (CNDDB

1997). The most recent population estimate in 1993 was 3,200 plants.

The site is grazed by cattle; apparently different patches of

Holocarpha macradenia have been grazed with varying intensities (M.

Silverstein, Elkhorn Slough Foundation, pers. comm. 1997). Morgan noted

that there were fewer than 100 plants in 1996 within a cattle exclosure

where there had previously been many more plants (R. Morgan, pers.

comm. 1997). The owners are interested in developing management plans

in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy that would address

appropriate grazing levels to benefit the tarplant (CDFG 1994, M.

Silverstein, pers. comm. 1997). The threats to Holocarpha macradenia on

this site are uncertain.

In summary, development, with its associated effects, is a primary

threat to Holocarpha macradenia. Six of the 12 remaining native

populations are on privately owned lands that are currently or

anticipated to be proposed for urban development (Graham Hill Road, the

Tan portion of O'Neill/Tan, Winkle Avenue, Fairway Drive, Harkins

Slough, and Struve Slough); 1 is on a site slated for a phased, 20-year

airport expansion (Watsonville Airport); and 3 are subject to secondary

effects of adjacent residential development (Arana Gulch, Twin Lakes,

Apple Hill)

ed lands that are currently or

anticipated to be proposed for urban development (Graham Hill Road, the

Tan portion of O'Neill/Tan, Winkle Avenue, Fairway Drive, Harkins

Slough, and Struve Slough); 1 is on a site slated for a phased, 20-year

airport expansion (Watsonville Airport); and 3 are subject to secondary

effects of adjacent residential development (Arana Gulch, Twin Lakes,

Apple Hill). Although 7 of the 12 sites include plans for conservation

of Holocarpha macradenia, either through development-related

mitigation, or by virtue of being on City, County, or State agency

lands, the successful implementation of these plans has not been

demonstrated. In particular, the size and quality of conservation areas

and management actions prescribed through the environmental review

process (see Factor D) may not be biologically adequate to meet the

goal of long-term conservation of the species. In addition,

conservation areas where Holocarpha macradenia populations are small in

numbers, small in area, whose habitat is degraded, or that continue to

receive secondary effects of adjacent human activities, become more

vulnerable to extirpation from naturally occurring events (see Factor

E).

B. Overuse for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not known to be a problem for this species.

C. Disease or Predation.

Disease is not known to be a problem for this species. Predation by

cattle, livestock, or other wildlife species is not known to occur, and

is unlikely given that the oil glands of mature Holocarpha macradenia

would make it unpalatable. Whether very young plants are subject to

predation prior to maturation of oil glands is unknown.

Grazing by cattle has altered habitat for Holocarpha macradenia at

a number of sites (Arana Gulch, O'Neill/Tan, Watsonville Airport,

Harkins Slough, Struve Slough, Porter Ranch, and all six seed

transplant populations in Wildcat Regional Park )

ure Holocarpha macradenia

would make it unpalatable. Whether very young plants are subject to

predation prior to maturation of oil glands is unknown.

Grazing by cattle has altered habitat for Holocarpha macradenia at

a number of sites (Arana Gulch, O'Neill/Tan, Watsonville Airport,

Harkins Slough, Struve Slough, Porter Ranch, and all six seed

transplant populations in Wildcat Regional Park ). Prior to the spread

of non-native annual grasses in the valleys and foothills of

California, the openings between perennial grasses in grassland and oak

woodland communities were probably occupied by native herbs (Barbour et

al. 1993). Grazing alters the species composition of grasslands in

several ways. The hooves of cattle create

sufficient soil disturbance to allow the establishment of non-native

species, intensive grazing eliminates native species through selective

foraging and favors the establishment of non-native species, and cattle

act as dispersal vectors for non-native species (Heady 1977; Sauer

1988, Willoughby 1986). Once non-native species become established,

they compete with native herbs and grasses for water, nutrients, and

light. Because non-native grasses are prolific seeders, they continue

to increase in abundance at the expense of the native taxa.

Once habitat for Holocarpha macradenia has been altered by grazing

and the proliferation of non-native plants, continued grazing may be

deleterious or beneficial to the persistence of the species. The

effects of continued grazing on Holocarpha macradenia depend on many

factors, including the current condition of the site, the timing, and

the amount of grazing. In some cases, light to moderate grazing will

remove sufficient biomass of non-native grasses to allow Holocarpha

macradenia to persist (CDFG 1995a, CDFG 1995b). For example, a

combination of mowing and grazing has probably favored the persistence

of Holocarpha macradenia at the Watsonville Airport site

ctors, including the current condition of the site, the timing, and

the amount of grazing. In some cases, light to moderate grazing will

remove sufficient biomass of non-native grasses to allow Holocarpha

macradenia to persist (CDFG 1995a, CDFG 1995b). For example, a

combination of mowing and grazing has probably favored the persistence

of Holocarpha macradenia at the Watsonville Airport site. The decline

of Holocarpha macradenia on the Struve Slough site has been attributed

to the cessation of grazing (CDFG 1995a, Taylor 1990). On the other

hand, heavy grazing is most likely responsible for the decline or

restriction in Holocarpha macradenia population sizes at the Arana

Gulch, Tan, and portions of the Porter Ranch sites (CNDDB 1997, CDFG

1995a), as well as one of the seed transplant populations (Big Belgum)

in Wildcat Canyon Regional Park (CDFG 1995b).

Because cattle grazing has frequently resulted in increasing the

abundance of non-native species, competition with these non-natives is

typically a problem. Additional discussion on this issue is found under

Factor E of this rule.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The CDFG Commission listed Holocarpha macradenia as an endangered

species in 1979 under the California Native Plant Protection Act

(CNPPA) (Div. 2, chapter 10 sec. 1900 et seq. of the CDFG Code) and the

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Division 3, Chapter 1.5 sec.

2050 et seq.). Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants has long

been prohibited under the CNPPA, Division 2, Chapter 10, section 1908

and the CESA, Division 3, Chapter 1.5, section 2080, in the past these

statutes have not provided adequate protection for such plants from the

impacts of habitat modification and land use change

a Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Division 3, Chapter 1.5 sec.

2050 et seq.). Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants has long

been prohibited under the CNPPA, Division 2, Chapter 10, section 1908

and the CESA, Division 3, Chapter 1.5, section 2080, in the past these

statutes have not provided adequate protection for such plants from the

impacts of habitat modification and land use change. For example, under

CNPPA, after CDFG notifies a landowner that a State-listed plant grows

on his or her property, the statute requires only that the landowner

notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land

use to allow salvage of such plant'' (CNPPA, Division, 2, Chapter 10,

section 1913). Under recent amendments to CESA, a permit under section

2081(b) of the CDFG Code is required to ``take'' State listed species

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The amendments require that

impacts to the species be fully mitigated. However these new

requirements have not been tested and several years will be required to

evaluate their effectiveness.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full

disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects.

The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the

project is designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for

conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other

agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section

15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a

project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range

of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible

for State listing as rare, threatened, or endangered, but are not so

listed, are given the same protection as those species that are

officially listed with the State or Federal governments

065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a

project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range

of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible

for State listing as rare, threatened, or endangered, but are not so

listed, are given the same protection as those species that are

officially listed with the State or Federal governments. Once

significant effects are identified, the lead agency has the option to

require mitigation for effects through changes in the project or to

decide that overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible. In

the latter case, projects may be approved that cause significant

environmental damage, such as destruction of endangered species.

Protection of listed species through CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon

the discretion of the agency involved.

The County of Santa Cruz recently revised its Local Coastal Program

and General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994). Under this plan,

``grasslands in the coastal zone'' are identified as one of a number of

Sensitive Habitats. Uses allowed within Sensitive Habitat areas are

restricted to those that are dependent on the habitat's resources

unless other uses are ``(a) consistent with protection policies and

serve a specific purpose beneficial to the public; (b) it is determined

through environmental review that any adverse impacts on the resource

will be completely mitigated and that there is no feasible less-

damaging alternative; and (c) legally necessary to allow a reasonable

economic use of the land, and there is no feasible less-damaging

alternative.'' (Santa Cruz County 1994). The County has attempted to

protect Santa Cruz tarplant during review of proposals for development

that fall under their purview by establishing conservation easements

volunteered by the project applicant, or preservation easements

requested of the applicant by the County

ow a reasonable

economic use of the land, and there is no feasible less-damaging

alternative.'' (Santa Cruz County 1994). The County has attempted to

protect Santa Cruz tarplant during review of proposals for development

that fall under their purview by establishing conservation easements

volunteered by the project applicant, or preservation easements

requested of the applicant by the County. To date, these include

development projects at the following sites--Graham Hill Road, O'Neill,

Tan, Winkle, and Fairway Drive. These easements typically set aside all

or most of the occupied habitat of Holocarpha macradenia and provide

for implementation of management plans for the attendant coastal

prairie habitat. Despite these efforts, however, the easements cover

small remnant acreages that represent only a fragment of the original

coastal prairie habitat that used to occur in the region, and intensive

management will be needed to support Holocarpha macradenia on these

sites.

Since Holocarpha macradenia was listed by the State in 1979, CDFG

has been tracking the status of its populations. Concern increased in

the late 1980s and early 1990s when it became apparent that native

populations were being destroyed by development, both in the San

Francisco Bay area and the Monterey Bay area. In 1993 and 1995, CDFG

hosted three Holocarpha macradenia recovery workshops to review the

status of the species and attendant populations, and to identify needed

actions to conserve the species. As a result of these workshops, CDFG

developed a MOU with the City of Santa Cruz addressing management of

the population at Arana Gulch, initiated discussion with the City of

Watsonville regarding the development of a MOU for management of the

Watsonville Airport site, provided funding for management of several

populations (including those at Arana Gulch and at Wildcat Regional

Park), and developed a conservation plan for the species, including a

list of four priority sites to target for conservation

population at Arana Gulch, initiated discussion with the City of

Watsonville regarding the development of a MOU for management of the

Watsonville Airport site, provided funding for management of several

populations (including those at Arana Gulch and at Wildcat Regional

Park), and developed a conservation plan for the species, including a

list of four priority sites to target for conservation. Efforts to

enlist the four property owners to conserve the species are pending.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Three additional factors threaten the continued existence of

Holocarpha macradenia--limited success of transplant efforts,

competition with

non-native plants, and extinction caused by naturally occurring events.

In Factor A above, detailed accounts were given of the 12 remaining

native populations of Holocarpha macradenia. The other six extant

populations of Holocarpha macradenia are a result of experimental seed

transplants. A brief summary of these transplanted populations is

warranted. In 1911, Jepson referred to Holocarpha macradenia as being

``abundant'' in west Berkeley and Oakland (Havlik 1986). Due to loss of

habitat to urbanization, Munz (1959) considered the taxon ``possibly

extinct.'' Therefore, when several populations were found near Pinole

and Richmond in Contra Costa County in the late 1970s and early 1980s,

botanists placed a high priority on establishing additional populations

to forestall extinction. Experiments were carried out to establish new

populations by seeding what was thought to be appropriate habitat

(Havlik 1986). Most of the transplants were done at Wildcat Canyon

Regional Park, which straddles Alameda and Contra Costa counties, but

several transplants were on lands owned and managed by East Bay

Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)

dditional populations

to forestall extinction. Experiments were carried out to establish new

populations by seeding what was thought to be appropriate habitat

(Havlik 1986). Most of the transplants were done at Wildcat Canyon

Regional Park, which straddles Alameda and Contra Costa counties, but

several transplants were on lands owned and managed by East Bay

Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).

Havlik (1989) reviewed results from the first seven years of seed

transplants and discussed how habitat characteristics, including soil

type, grazing pressure (cattle), and occurrence within the coastal fog

belt, may have affected transplant success. Initial data suggested that

populations exposed to moderate grazing pressure were larger than those

exposed to low grazing pressure. From 1982 to 1986, a total of 22 seed

transplants was attempted within Wildcat Regional Park and on EBMUD

land. Most of the sites have been monitored annually since then. In

1989, 3 sites supported over 3,000 plants; two had over 1,000 plants;

eleven had over 100 plants; 2 had over 10 plants; and 4 had no plants.

By 1993, 1 site (referred to as Mezue) supported a population of

6,400 plants; 4 had fewer than 300 plants; 2 had fewer than 100 plants;

10 had no plants; and 3 sites could not be relocated (CDFG 1994). By

1997, the Mezue site supported between 5,000 and 7,000 plants; 1 had

fewer than 300 plants; 4 had fewer than 100 plants; and 7 had no

plants. Most of the remaining sites were not checked since previous

multiple-year monitoring indicated that plants had disappeared from

those sites.

Although the information gathered from these seed transplant trials

has been valuable for understanding the life history of the plant and

how it responds to various types of management, the limited success of

establishing viable populations means that these transplant sites have

a limited value for maintaining the viability of the species compared

to the native populations

from

those sites.

Although the information gathered from these seed transplant trials

has been valuable for understanding the life history of the plant and

how it responds to various types of management, the limited success of

establishing viable populations means that these transplant sites have

a limited value for maintaining the viability of the species compared

to the native populations. The seeded populations of tarplant are

threatened to some extent by competition with artichoke thistle and

non-native grasses.

One of the most prevalent forms of habitat alteration occurring

within the coastal prairie habitat of Santa Cruz tarplant is the

conversion of the flora from one comprised primarily of native grasses

to one comprised primarily of non-native grasses. As discussed in

factors A and C above, the conversion of native habitats to grazing

lands enhances the opportunity for non-native grasses to be introduced

and disseminate into the surrounding areas. Because many non-native

grasses germinate early and seed prolifically, they may quickly gain a

competitive advantage over native grasses (Heady 1977, McClintock

1986). Field survey reports show that non-native grasses have become

prevalent, and thus represent a potential threat, at the following

sites for Holocarpha macradenia--Arana Gulch, Twin Lakes, Tan,

Watsonville Airport, Harkins Slough, Struve Slough, Spring Hills,

Porter (CNDDB 1997, Taylor 1990).

The Struve Slough site, which until 1989 supported one of the

largest populations of Santa Cruz tarplant, is currently dominated by

non-native species, primarily wild oat, prickly lettuce, and wild

fennel. Before 1989, grazing by cattle had favored the presence of

ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and quaking grass (Briza maxima) on the

site; cattle grazing was removed in 1989. Although a seed bank for

Santa Cruz tarplant still exists on the site, the plant has not been

seen since 1994

ruz tarplant, is currently dominated by

non-native species, primarily wild oat, prickly lettuce, and wild

fennel. Before 1989, grazing by cattle had favored the presence of

ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and quaking grass (Briza maxima) on the

site; cattle grazing was removed in 1989. Although a seed bank for

Santa Cruz tarplant still exists on the site, the plant has not been

seen since 1994.

The seeded populations of tarplant are also threatened to some

extent by competition with non-native species, particularly artichoke

thistle and non-native grasses. This thistle, the wild variety of the

edible artichoke, modifies habitat for the tarplant by virtue of its

large size, its allelopathic properties (chemical inhibition of growth

of other plants), and by creating shade (Kelley and Pepper, in press).

Other weedy characteristics of the artichoke thistle include its

ability to resprout vigorously from a perennial taproot, extended

flowering, seed production, and germination seasons, and the ability to

germinate and grow rapidly in a variety of environmental conditions

(Kelley and Pepper, in press). Apparently, artichoke thistle was

introduced to the area around Benicia, only a few miles north of the

Regional Park, in the 1880s; by the 1930s, 70,000 acres in the hills

around the east and north side of San Francisco Bay were infested with

the artichoke thistle (Ball in Thomsen et al. 1986).

Starting in 1996, the Regional Park, with the County of Alameda,

initiated an artichoke thistle removal program using herbicides.

Although sites that support tarplant are a priority for artichoke

thistle removal, the abundance of artichoke thistle in adjacent areas

facilitates reestablishment into already treated areas.

Non-native grasses also occur with tarplant at the six seed

transplant sites. All six sites are also grazed by cattle. If non-

native grasses become too abundant, they outcompete the tarplant

herbicides.

Although sites that support tarplant are a priority for artichoke

thistle removal, the abundance of artichoke thistle in adjacent areas

facilitates reestablishment into already treated areas.

Non-native grasses also occur with tarplant at the six seed

transplant sites. All six sites are also grazed by cattle. If non-

native grasses become too abundant, they outcompete the tarplant.

Cattle grazing decreases the abundance of non-native grasses; however,

at one of the sites (Big Belgum), an increase in cattle grazing was

thought to be the cause of a declining tarplant population (CDFG

1995b).

French broom is another non-native species that threatens

Holocarpha macradenia. French broom is very aggressive, spreads

rapidly, and easily colonizes disturbed areas such as roadsides and

recently cleared land. Like artichoke thistle, French broom can

eventually form dense thickets that displace native vegetation (Habitat

Restoration Group (HRG) n.d.). French broom occurs at the following

sites that support Holocarpha macradenia--Arana Gulch, Graham Hill

Road, Twin Lakes, Tan, and Fairway Drive (CDFG 1997, HRG 1996).

So much of the coastal prairie habitat that supports Holocarpha

macradenia has been altered, fragmented, or destroyed that most of the

remaining habitat supports only very small populations, both in numbers

of individuals and in acreage. Species with few populations and

individuals are vulnerable to the threat of naturally occurring events

causing extinction in several ways. First, the loss of genetic

diversity may decrease a species' ability to maintain fitness within

the environment, often manifested in depressed reproductive vigor.

Secondly, species with few populations or individuals may be subject to

forces that affect their ability to complete their life cycle

successfully. For example, the loss of pollinators may reduce

successful seed set

n several ways. First, the loss of genetic

diversity may decrease a species' ability to maintain fitness within

the environment, often manifested in depressed reproductive vigor.

Secondly, species with few populations or individuals may be subject to

forces that affect their ability to complete their life cycle

successfully. For example, the loss of pollinators may reduce

successful seed set. Thirdly, random, natural events, such as storms,

drought, or fire could destroy a significant percentage of a species'

individuals or entire populations. Also, the restriction of certain

populations to small sites increases their risk of extinction from

naturally occurring events. Of the 12

native sites, the Watsonville Airport site is the largest, supporting

200,000 to 400,000 plants on 37 acres. The Struve Slough site formerly

supported 400,000 individuals on 4 acres, but had declined to a single

individual in 1994. The Spring Hills Golf Course site supports up to

3,500 plants on 13 acres. The Porter Ranch site used to support 43,000

plants on 10 acres, but the population had declined to fewer than 100

plants in 1996. The Arana Gulch site supported 20,000 plants on 5 acres

in 1997. The remaining seven native sites support approximately 1 acre

or less of occupied habitat; of these, at least two (Twin Lakes, Tan)

had no plants in 1997. Of the 6 seed transplant sites in Wildcat Canyon

Regional Park in the east San Francisco Bay area, 1 supported a

population of 6,000 to 7,000 individuals, and the remaining 5 supported

between 17 and 148 individuals. Olsen estimates that each of these

sites covers 1 to 3 acres, and that the total area of all six sites is

between 10 and 20 acres (B. Olsen, biologist, EBRPD, pers. comm. 1997).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this taxon in determining to propose this rule

and 148 individuals. Olsen estimates that each of these

sites covers 1 to 3 acres, and that the total area of all six sites is

between 10 and 20 acres (B. Olsen, biologist, EBRPD, pers. comm. 1997).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this taxon in determining to propose this rule.

Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Holocarpha

macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant), as threatened. This species is likely

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range due to habitat alteration and

destruction resulting primarily from urban and commercial development,

invasion of its habitat by non-native vegetation due to cattle grazing,

limited success of seed transplant populations, competition with non-

native plants, and vulnerability to naturally occurring events due to

low numbers of individuals. Although a few of the remaining native

populations are on City, County, or State-owned lands, most of them are

on private lands. Conservation efforts to date have shown that this

species may be maintained by applying intensive management techniques.

These efforts will be most effective on sites where acreage of

remaining habitat is large, support naturally large populations, and

are secure from threats. Although conservation efforts have been

prescribed as part of mitigation for a number of development projects,

the small acreage, small population sizes, and physical proximity of

threats lessen the chance that such efforts will lead to secure, self-

sustaining populations at these sites. Therefore, the preferred action

is to list Holocarpha macradenia as threatened. Critical habitat is not

being proposed for Holocarpha macradenia for the reasons discussed

below.

Critical Habitat

evelopment projects,

the small acreage, small population sizes, and physical proximity of

threats lessen the chance that such efforts will lead to secure, self-

sustaining populations at these sites. Therefore, the preferred action

is to list Holocarpha macradenia as threatened. Critical habitat is not

being proposed for Holocarpha macradenia for the reasons discussed

below.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A)of the Act as (i) the

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) require that, to the maximum extent

prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at

the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.

Critical habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant is determinable. Although

additional information would be useful, sufficient information

concerning the physical and biological features of the tarplant's

habitat exists to determine critical habitat (CNDDB 1997, CDFG 1995a,

CDFG 1995b, Palmer 1986).

Critical habitat can be designated for suitable, but unoccupied,

habitat of listed species. There are no opportunities to do so for the

Santa Cruz tarplant because sites where it historically occurred have

all been rendered unsuitable

ncerning the physical and biological features of the tarplant's

habitat exists to determine critical habitat (CNDDB 1997, CDFG 1995a,

CDFG 1995b, Palmer 1986).

Critical habitat can be designated for suitable, but unoccupied,

habitat of listed species. There are no opportunities to do so for the

Santa Cruz tarplant because sites where it historically occurred have

all been rendered unsuitable. Sites where plants have been regularly

seen, but not on the most recent inspection, are assumed to have viable

seed banks, and cannot be considered ``unoccupied.'' Similarly, because

the six seed transplant populations on park land (owned by East Bay

Regional Parks District) have been at best moderately successful, the

Service is unable to conclude that these sites are suitable to the

plant. The transplant sites thus are not appropriate for designation as

critical habitat.

Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following

situations exist--(i) the species is threatened by taking or other

human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected

to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (ii) such

designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

The Service finds that designation of critical habitat for the Santa

Cruz tarplant is not prudent because it would provide no additional

benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing it as

threatened. The basis for this conclusion, including the factors

considered in weighing the benefits against the risks of designation,

is provided below.

As discussed above, 8 out of 12 extant native populations occur

predominantly on private land, and 4 are on City, County or State land.

Because Santa Cruz tarplant is State-listed, activities occurring on

these private and public lands are subject to State regulations

is conclusion, including the factors

considered in weighing the benefits against the risks of designation,

is provided below.

As discussed above, 8 out of 12 extant native populations occur

predominantly on private land, and 4 are on City, County or State land.

Because Santa Cruz tarplant is State-listed, activities occurring on

these private and public lands are subject to State regulations. For

populations that occur within Santa Cruz County outside of City limits

(Graham Hill Road, O'Neill/Tan, Winkle, Fairway Drive, Harkins Slough,

Struve Slough, Spring Hills Golf Course), activities are also subject

to ordinances through the Local Coastal Program and General Plan. The

Porter Ranch population is subject to ordinances through the County of

Monterey. Because there is no Federal assistance to, or regulation of

activities (i.e., a Federal nexus) on these privately owned sites,

designation of critical habitat would provide no benefit to the Santa

Cruz tarplant in addition to that provided by listing. Federal

involvement, should it occur, would be identified without the

designation of critical habitat because interagency coordination

requirements (e.g. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the

Endangered Species Act) are already in place. Designating critical

habitat would not create a management plan for the plant, establish

goals for its recovery, nor directly affect areas not designated as

critical habitat. Additionally, the designation of critical habitat,

which does not affect private landowners, may distract these landowners

from, or discourage their participation in State and local conservation

programs. Landowner participation in these programs is essential to the

long term conservation and recovery of the Santa Cruz tarplant.

Designation of critical habitat on private land would therefore not

merely provide no benefit to the tarplant, but would actually create a

needless risk

rs, may distract these landowners

from, or discourage their participation in State and local conservation

programs. Landowner participation in these programs is essential to the

long term conservation and recovery of the Santa Cruz tarplant.

Designation of critical habitat on private land would therefore not

merely provide no benefit to the tarplant, but would actually create a

needless risk.

For the 4 native populations on City, County, or State lands,

policies of the various agencies involved regarding protection and

conservation of sensitive species apply. The Twin Lakes population is

on park land owned by CDPR; the Arana Gulch population occurs on park

land owned by the City of Santa Cruz. The Apple Hill

population occurs on land owned by CALTRANS. The Watsonville Airport

population is owned by the City of Watsonville. In addition to these

four populations, a portion of the O'Neill/Tan population occurs on

park land owned by the County of Santa Cruz. All of these populations

are currently recognized for conservation purposes by their managers,

or progress is being made toward such recognition (as at Watsonville

Airport). There is currently no Federal nexus at any of these sites. A

Federal nexus could emerge at the airport if federally-funded

construction is proposed, but the airport population's importance to

the conservation of the species (it is the largest population in

existence) assures that virtually any adverse effect at the airport

would very likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Santa Cruz

tarplant. Thus, designation of critical habitat at any of the publicly-

owned sites would provide no additional benefit.

Available Conservation Measures

the airport population's importance to

the conservation of the species (it is the largest population in

existence) assures that virtually any adverse effect at the airport

would very likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Santa Cruz

tarplant. Thus, designation of critical habitat at any of the publicly-

owned sites would provide no additional benefit.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and

conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private

organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery

actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities

involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy

or adversely modify its critical habitat

e continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy

or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service. No

Federal agency involvement has been identified at this time.

Listing of this plant as threatened will provide for the

development of a recovery plan. Such a plan will bring together

Federal, State, and local efforts for its conservation. The plan will

establish a framework for cooperation and coordination in recovery

efforts. The plan will set recovery priorities and estimate costs of

various tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also will describe site-

specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and

survival of Holocarpha macradenia.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened

plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by

50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, applies. These prohibitions, in

part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale

in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession

the species from areas under Federal jurisdiction

17.71 for threatened plants, applies. These prohibitions, in

part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale

in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession

the species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for

plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or

destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal,

cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in

knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State

criminal trespass law. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the provision

of such protection to threatened species through regulation. This

protection may apply to Holocarpha macradenia in the future if

regulations are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens of

threatened plant species are exempt from these prohibitions provided

that their containers are marked ``Of Cultivated Origin.'' Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also provide for the

issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered or threatened plant species under certain

circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and

to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. For threatened

plants, permits also are available for botanical or horticultural

exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with

the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated that few trade permits would

ever be sought or issued because this species is not in cultivation or

common in the wild. Requests for copies of the regulations on listed

species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to the U.S

for botanical or horticultural

exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with

the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated that few trade permits would

ever be sought or issued because this species is not in cultivation or

common in the wild. Requests for copies of the regulations on listed

species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, 911 NE

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6131, FAX

503/231-6243).

The Service adopted a policy on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to

identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is

proposed for listing those activities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. The Service

believes that, based upon the best available information, the following

actions will not result in a violation of section 9, provided these

activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and

permit requirements:

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal

agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, land use

activities that would significantly modify the species' habitat,

wetland and riparian habitat modification, flood and erosion control,

residential development, recreational trail development, road

construction, hazardous material containment and cleanup activities,

prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, pipelines or utility

line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in

accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the

Service according to section 7 of the Act; or when such activity does

not occur in habitats suitable for the survival and recovery of

Holocarpha macradenia and does not alter the hydrology or habitat

supporting this plant.

cide application, pipelines or utility

line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in

accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the

Service according to section 7 of the Act; or when such activity does

not occur in habitats suitable for the survival and recovery of

Holocarpha macradenia and does not alter the hydrology or habitat

supporting this plant.

(2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g.,

bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, hiking).

(3) Activities on private lands (without Federal funding or

involvement), such as grazing management, agricultural conversions,

wetland and riparian habitat modification (not including filling of

wetlands), flood and erosion control, residential development, road

construction, pesticide/herbicide application, and pipelines or utility

lines crossing suitable habitat.

(4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of

vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.

The Service believes that the actions listed below might

potentially result in a violation of section 9; however, possible

violations are not limited to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal lands;

(2) Application of herbicides violating label restrictions;

(3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without

previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct

activities are available for purposes of scientific research and

enhancement of propagation or survival of the species.

Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as changes in

land use, will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed

to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Public Comments Solicited

permit. Permits to conduct

activities are available for purposes of scientific research and

enhancement of propagation or survival of the species.

Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as changes in

land use, will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed

to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Fish and

Wildlife Service will follow its current peer review policy (59 FR

34270) in the processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on this species.

Final promulgation of the regulations on this species will take

into consideration the comments and any additional information received

by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation

that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such

requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the Field

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

ad to a final regulation

that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such

requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the Field

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to Section

4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain collections of information that require

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,

is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Constance Rutherford,

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805/644-

1766).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

egulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical order

under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species

-------------------------------------------------------- Historic Range Family Status When listed Critical Special

Scientific name Common name habitat rules

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

Holocarpha macradenia............ Santa Cruz tarplant. U.S.A. (CA)........ Compositae......... T ........... NA NA

* * * * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 17, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-8052 Filed 3-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P