5494 Federal Register / Vol. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish … End… · hours at the Ventura...
7
5494 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 1994 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service f__f / 5OCFRPartI7 RIN 1018-AB88 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Tidewater Goby AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered status pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). The tidewater goby is a fIsh that occurs in tidal streams associated with coastal wetlands in California. Since 1900, the tidewater goby has disappeared from nearly 50 percent of the coastal lagoons within its historic range, including 74 percent of the lagoons south of Morro Bay in central California. Only three populations currently exist south of Ventura County. This rule implements the protection and recovery provisions provided by the Act for the tidewater goby. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1994. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2140 Eastman Avenue, suite 100, Ventura, California 93003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz at the above address (805/644— 1766). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Background The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberrvi) is a small fish, rarely exceeding 50 millimeters (2 inches) standard length, and is characterized by large pectoral fins and a ventral sucker- like disk formed by the complete fusion of the pelvic fins. The tidewater goby was first described as a new species (Gobius newberryl) by Girard (1856), from specimens collected in the San Francisco Bay area. Based on Girard’s specimens, Gill (1862) reassigned Gohius newberryi to the newly described genus Eucyclogobius (Eschmeyer 1990). A member of the family Gobiidae, the tidewater goby is the only species in the genus Eucyclogobius and is almost unique among fishes along the Pacific coast of the United States in its restriction to waters with low salinities in California’s coastal wetlands. All life stages of tidewater gobies are found at the upper end of lagoons in salinities less than 10 parts per thousand (ppt); however, gobies from two populations have been collected and reared in slightly higher salinities (Ramona Swenson, University of California, Berkeley, in iitt. 1993). Although its closest relatives are marine species, the tidewater goby does not have a marine life history phase. This lack of a marine phase severely restricts the frequency of genetic exchange between coastal lagoon populations and significantly lowers the potential for natural recolonization of a locality once extirpated. Studies by Crabtree (1985) noted that some populations of gobies have differentiated genetically, indicating a long period of isolation. Tidewater gobies have a short lifespan and seem to be an annual species (Irwin and Stoltz 1984, Swift 1990), further restricting their potential to recolonize habitats from which they have been extirpated. The tidewater goby occurs in loose aggregations of a few to several hundred individuals on the substrate in shallow water less than 1 meter (3 feet) deep (Swift et al. 1989), although gobies have been observed at depths of 1.5 to 2.3 meters (4.9 to 7.6 feet) (Dan Holland, University of Southwestern Louisiana, in iitt. 1993). Peak nesting activities commence in late April through early May, when male gobies dig a vertical nesting burrow 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) deep in clean, coarse sand. Suitable water temperatures for nesting are 18 to 22°C (75.6 to 79.6°F)with salinities of 5 to 10 ppt. Male gobies remain in the burrows to guard eggs, which are hung from the ceiling and walls of the burrow until hatching. Larval gobies are found midwater around vegetation until they become benthic (Swift et al. 1989). Although the potential for year round spawning exists, it is probably unlikely because of seasonal low temperatures and disruptions of lagoons during winter. storms. Ecological studies performed at two sites documented spawning occurring as early as the first week in January (Swenson in Iitt. 1993). Although usually associated with lagoons, the tidewater goby has been documented in ponded freshwater habitats as far as 8 kilometers (5 miles) upstream from San Antonio lagoon in Santa Barbara County (Irwin and Stoltz 1984). The tidewater goby is discontinuously distributed throughout California, ranging from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River) in Del Norte County south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County. Areas of precipitous coastlines that preclude the formation of lagoons at stream mouths have created three natural gaps in the distribution of the goby. Gobies are apparently absent from three sections of the coast between: (1) Humboldt Bay and Ten Mile River, (2) Point Arena and Salmon Creek, and (3) Monterey Bay and Arroyo del Oso. Roughly 10 percent of the coastal lagoons presently containing populations of tidewater goby are under Federal ownership. Over 40 percent of the remaining populations are either entirely or partly owned and managed by the State of California. The remainder are privately owned. Previous Federal Action The tidewater goby was first classified by the Service as a category 2 species in 1982 (47 FR 58454). It was reclassified as a category I candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804) based on status and threat information in Swift et a!. (1989). Category 2 applies to taxa for which information now in the possession of the Service indicates that proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats are not currently available to support a listing proposal. Category 1 applies to taxa for which the Service has on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species. On October 24, 1990, the Service received a petition from Dr. Camm Swift, Associate Curator of Fishes at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History, to list the tidewater goby as endangered (Swift 1990). The petition, status surveys, and accompanying data describe the goby as threatened because of past and continuing losses of coastal and riparian habitats within its historic range. The Service’s finding that this petition presented substantial information that the requested action may be warranted was published on March 22, 1991 (56 FR 12146). Following this finding, the Service initiated a status review on the tidewater gobv. Section 4[b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended in 1982, requires the Secretary to make a finding within 12 months of the date a petition is received as to whether or not the requested action is warranted. On December 11, 1992, the Service published a proposal to list the tidewater goby as an endangered species (57 FR 58770). The proposed rule
Transcript of 5494 Federal Register / Vol. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish … End… · hours at the Ventura...
5494 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Servicef__f /
5OCFRPartI7RIN 1018-AB88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Status for the TidewaterGoby
AGENCY: FishandWildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The FishandWildlife Service(Service)determinesendangeredstatuspursuantto theprovisionsof theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended(Act), for thetidewatergoby(Eucyclogobiusnewberryi).Thetidewatergoby is a fIsh thatoccursintidal streamsassociatedwith coastalwetlandsin California. Since1900,thetidewatergoby hasdisappearedfromnearly50 percentof thecoastallagoonswithin its historic range,including74percentof thelagoonssouthof MorroBay in centralCalifornia. Only threepopulationscurrentlyexist southofVenturaCounty.Thisrule implementstheprotectionandrecoveryprovisionsprovidedby theAct for the tidewatergoby.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1994.ADDRESSES: Thecompletefile for thisrule is availablefor inspection,byappointment,duringnormal businesshoursat theVenturaField Office, U.S.FishandWildlife Service,2140 EastmanAvenue,suite 100,Ventura,California93003.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CarlBenz at theaboveaddress(805/644—1766).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
Background
Thetidewatergoby (Eucyclogobiusnewberrvi) is asmall fish, rarelyexceeding50 millimeters (2 inches)standardlength,andis characterizedbylargepectoralfins anda ventralsucker-like disk formedby thecompletefusionof thepelvic fins. Thetidewatergobywasfirst describedas anew species(Gobiusnewberryl)by Girard (1856),from specimenscollectedin theSanFranciscoBay area.Basedon Girard’sspecimens,Gill (1862)reassignedGohiusnewberryi to thenewlydescribedgenusEucyclogobius(Eschmeyer1990).
A memberof the family Gobiidae,thetidewatergoby is theonly speciesin thegenusEucyclogobiusandis almostuniqueamongfishesalongthePacific
coastof theUnited Statesin itsrestrictionto waterswith low salinitiesin California’scoastalwetlands.All lifestagesof tidewatergobiesarefound attheupperendof lagoonsin salinitieslessthan 10 partsperthousand(ppt);however,gobiesfrom two populationshavebeencollectedandrearedinslightly highersalinities(RamonaSwenson,University of California,Berkeley,in iitt. 1993).Although itsclosestrelativesaremarinespecies,thetidewatergoby doesnot haveamarinelife history phase.This lackof a marinephaseseverelyrestrictsthefrequencyofgeneticexchangebetweencoastallagoonpopulationsandsignificantlylowersthepotential for naturalrecolonizationof alocality onceextirpated.Studiesby Crabtree(1985)notedthatsomepopulationsof gobieshavedifferentiatedgenetically,indicatingalong periodof isolation.Tidewatergobieshaveashort lifespanandseemto beanannualspecies(IrwinandStoltz 1984,Swift 1990),furtherrestrictingtheir potentialto recolonizehabitatsfrom which theyhavebeenextirpated.
Thetidewatergoby occursin looseaggregationsof a few to severalhundredindividuals on thesubstratein shallowwaterlessthan 1 meter(3 feet)deep(Swift etal. 1989),althoughgobieshavebeenobservedat depthsof 1.5 to 2.3meters(4.9 to 7.6 feet) (DanHolland,Universityof SouthwesternLouisiana,in iitt. 1993). Peaknestingactivitiescommencein lateApril throughearlyMay, whenmalegobiesdig averticalnestingburrow10 to 20 centimeters(4to 8 inches)deepin clean,coarsesand.Suitablewatertemperaturesfor nestingare18 to 22°C(75.6to 79.6°F)withsalinitiesof 5 to 10 ppt. Male gobiesremainin theburrowsto guardeggs,whicharehungfrom theceiling andwalls of theburrowuntil hatching.Larval gobiesarefoundmidwateraroundvegetationuntil theybecomebenthic (Swift et al. 1989).Although thepotential for yearroundspawningexists,it is probablyunlikely becauseofseasonallow temperaturesanddisruptionsof lagoonsduringwinter.storms.Ecologicalstudiesperformedattwo sitesdocumentedspawningoccurringasearlyas the first weekinJanuary(Swensonin Iitt. 1993).Although usuallyassociatedwithlagoons,thetidewatergoby hasbeendocumentedin pondedfreshwaterhabitatsasfaras8 kilometers(5 miles)upstreamfrom SanAntonio lagooninSantaBarbaraCounty (Irwin andStoltz1984).
Thetidewatergoby is discontinuouslydistributedthroughoutCalifornia,rangingfrom Tillas Slough(mouth of
theSmith River)in Del NorteCountysouthto AguaHediondaLagoonin SanDiegoCounty.Areasof precipitouscoastlinesthat precludethe formationoflagoonsat streammouthshavecreatedthreenaturalgapsin thedistribution ofthegoby. Gobiesareapparentlyabsentfrom threesectionsof thecoastbetween:(1) HumboldtBay andTen Mile River,(2) Point ArenaandSalmonCreek,and(3) MontereyBay andArroyo delOso.
Roughly10 percentof thecoastallagoonspresentlycontainingpopulationsof tidewatergoby areunderFederalownership.Over40 percentoftheremainingpopulationsareeitherentirelyor partly ownedandmanagedby theStateof California.Theremainderareprivately owned.
PreviousFederalActionThetidewatergoby wasfirst classified
by theServiceasa category2 speciesin1982(47 FR 58454).It wasreclassifiedasacategoryI candidatein 1991 (56FR58804)basedon statusandthreatinformation in Swift et a!. (1989).Category2 appliesto taxafor whichinformation now in thepossessionoftheServiceindicatesthatproposingtolist asendangeredorthreatenedispossiblyappropriate,but for whichconclusivedataon biologicalvulnerabilityandthreatsarenotcurrentlyavailableto supportalistingproposal.Category1 appliesto taxaforwhich theServicehason file substantialinformation on biological vulnerabilityandthreatsto supportproposalsto listthemasendangeredor threatenedspecies.
On October24, 1990, theServicereceivedapetition from Dr. CammSwift, AssociateCuratorof Fishesat theLos AngelesMuseumof NaturalHistory,to list the tidewatergoby asendangered(Swift 1990).The petition,statussurveys,andaccompanyingdatadescribethegoby asthreatenedbecauseof pastandcontinuinglossesof coastalandriparianhabitatswithin its historicrange.The Service’sfinding that thispetitionpresentedsubstantialinformationthattherequestedactionmaybewarrantedwaspublishedonMarch22, 1991 (56FR 12146).Followingthis finding, theServiceinitiated astatusreview on thetidewatergobv.
Section4[b)(3)(B) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct (Act), asamendedin 1982,requirestheSecretaryto makeafindingwithin 12 monthsof thedateapetitionis receivedas to whetheror not therequestedactionis warranted.OnDecember11, 1992, theServicepublishedaproposalto list thetidewatergoby asan endangeredspecies(57FR 58770).Theproposedrule
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 24 I Friday, February 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 5495
constituted the 12-month finding thatthe petitioned action waswarranted.
Summary of CommentsandRecommendations
In the DecemberII, 1992 proposedrule, all interestedpartieswererequestedto submit factual reports orinformation thatmight contributeto thedevelopmentof a final determination.AppropriateFederalandStateagencies,countygovernments,scientificorganizations,andotherinterestedpartieswerecontactedandrequestedtocomment.Newspapernoticeswerepubliahedin TheLos AngelesTimes onJanuary1, 1993,The SanFranciscoSundayExaminer~nd ChronicleonJanuary3, 1993, andThe SanDiegoUnion-Tribuneon February4, 1993. Thepublic commentperiodendedonFcbruary9, 1993. A total of 548commentswerereceived.TheServicereceivedoneletter from a Federalagency,threelettersfrom Stateoffices,andfive from city or countyagencies.Five hundredandten of thecomments~vercpost cardsfrom individuals urgingsupportfor thelisting of thespecies.The Servicereceived29 lettersfromindi~idualsandprivateorganizations.Of those,only oneexpressedan opinionIc oapositionto listing thetidewatergoh~’as endanoered.
ThuNationa~ParkService(SantaMonicaMountainsNationalRecreationArea)statedsupport for the listing of thetidewatergoby as endangeredandsugoestedlocationswithin therecreaticuareaboundariesthat may becanlidatesfor reintroductionof thespecies.TheNationalPark Servicealsosoughtassistancefrom theServiceineurmining potentialhabitat locationsen buds not underpublic ownershiptbat may beacquiredunder its landacouisjlionproaram.
ThreeCalifornia Stateagenciesofferedcomments.TheTopanga-LasVirccnesResourceConservationDj~trict,a subdivisionof Stateezcuemment,expressedfull support fortice listing of thegoby. TheCaliforniaCoastalCommissionstated,‘The acutevulnerability of thetidewatergoby toman-inducedchangesof estuarinehabitatmakesthedevelopmentofcomprehensivemanagementstrategiesandplans.includingdevelopmentofrecoveryplans,for this speciesimperative.”TheCaliforniaDepartmentof Fish andGamesubmittedinformationpertainingto a projectto reestablishapopulationof tidewatergobieson\Vadde~lCreekLagoon.The populationwasreintroducedin the fall of 1991 andsubsequentlysampledin November1992. Gobieswerereportedfrom threesites in thelagoon-TheDepartmentwill
continue to obtain information on thatpopulation as it is surveyed.
Five letters of information werereceivedfrom city or county agencies.Two of these,onefrom the County ofSanta Barbara ResourceManagementDepartment andonefrom the City ofSanta Cruz, detailed populationoccurrencesthat were already known totheService.Two lettersfrom thecitiesof SanBuenaventura and Santa Barbaracited possibleimpactsto goby habitatdueto proposedor ongoingprojects.Theseletterslisted threatsthat arediscussedunderFactorA in the‘Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies”section.The SantaBarbaraCountyFlood Control and\VaterConservationDistrict statedsupport forlisting, but expressedconcernsregardingthedesignationof criticalhabitat.
TheEnvironmentalDefenseCenteridentifiedthreeissuesconcerningtheproposedrule.
Issue1: The critical habitat findingfailed to meetthestandardsofsection4 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct andunderNorthern SpottedOv.-l v. Lujan,758F. Supp.621 (W.D. Wash.1991).
ServiceResponse:TheServiceconcursthat critical habitatshouldbedesignatedfor thetidewatergoby.Informationneededto completerequiredeconomicimpact ana]ysesconsistsof identifying Federalactionsthatmight beprecludedormodified bythedestruction/adversemodificationstandardbut not by thejeopardystandard.Moreover,it will be necessaryto describehow theseactionsmay bemodified by applicationof thedestruction/adversemodificationstandard.This information will provideabasisfor analyseson theeconomiceffectsof designatingcritical habitat.
Issue2’ ‘Al thout critical habitat,theServicelacks jurisdiction to preventormodify certainactionsaffectingthetidewatergoby.
Sen-iceResponse:Although in somecasescritical habitatmay provideprotectionotherwiseunavailablethroughthejeopardystandard,jurisdiction is availablethroughthejeopardystandardandsection9, both ofwhichmay be aggressivelyapplied toprotectlistedspecies.
Issue3: The Serviceshouldatminimum proposetheSantaYnezestuaryas critical habitatnow.
ServiceResponse:TheServiceintendsto proposeas critical habitatalltidewatergoby habitatthatmay beessentialto thespecies’conservation,asopposedto thepiecemealapproachadvocatedin therecommendationtoproposeoneestuary.In the interim, theSantaYnezestuaryis ownedby the U.S.
Air Force,which is subjectto thesection7(a)(1)affirmative conservationmandateandtheprohibitionsagainstjeopardycontainedin section7(a)(2).
Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies
After athoroughreviewandconsiderationof all informationavailable,theServicehasdeterminedthat thetidewatergoby shouldbeclassifiedasanendangeredspecies.Proceduresfoundat section4 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct (16U.S.C. 1531et seq.)andregulations(50~FR part424)promulgatedto implementthelisting provisionsof theAct werefollowed. A speciesmaybedeterminedto bean endangeredor threatenedspeciesdueto oneor moreof the fivefactorsdescribedin section4(a)(I).Thesefactorsandtheirapplicationtothe tidewater goby (Eucyclogobiusnewberryl)areas follows:
A. Thepresentor threateneddestruction,modification, orcurtailmentof itshabitator range.Coastaldevelopmentprojectsthatresultin theloss of coastalsaitmarshhabitatarecurrently thema}or factoradverselyaffectingthetidewatergoby. Coastalmarshhabitatshavebeendrainedandreclaimedfor residentialandindustrialdevelopments.Waterwayshavebeendredgedfor navigationandharborsresultingin permanentanddirect lossesof wetlandhabitats,aswell as indirectlossesdueto associatedchangesinsalinity. Coastalroadconstructionprojectshaveseveredtheconnectionbetweenmarshesandtheocean,resultingin unnaturaltemperatureandsalinity profilesthatthetidewatergobycannottolerate.
Furthermore.upstreamwaterdiversionsadverselyaffectthetidewatergoby by altering downstreamflows,therebydiminishing theextentof marshhabitatsthat occurredhistorically at themouthsof most riversandcreeksinCalifornia. Alterationsof flowsupstreamof coastallagoonshavealreadychangedthedistributionofdownstreamsalinity regimes.Sincethetidewatergoby hasrelativelynarrowsalinity tolerances,changesin salinitydistributionsdueto upstreamwaterdiversionsmay adverselyaffectboth thesizeanddistribution of gobypopulations(D. Holland,Univ. ofSouthwesternLouisiana,pers. comm.,1991).
Historically, thetidewatergobyoccurredin at least87 of Californa’scoastallagoons(Swift et a]. 1989). Since1900,it hasdisappearedfromapproximately50 percentof formerlyoccupiedlagoons.A rangewidestatussurveyconductedin 1984 found that 22
5496 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
historic populations of tidewatergobyhadbeenextirpated(Swift eta!. 1989).Only 5 yearslater, a status surveydocumentedthedisappearanceof anadditional21 populations.In theSanFranciscoBay area,9 of 10 previouslyidentifiedpopulationshavedisappeared(Swift et a]. 1989, 1990).Lossesin thesouthernpart of theStatehavebeenthegreatest,including 74 percentof thecoastallagoonssouthof Morro Bay.Threepopulationscurrentlyremainsouthof VenturaCounty.Since1989,threeadditionaltidewatergobypopulationshavebeenlost in SanLuisObispo andSantaCruzCounties(Swiftet a]. 1989, 1990).Five smallpopulationshavebeenrediscoveredsince1984, buttheoveralllossesindicatea declineof 35 percentrangewidein 6 years(Holland 1991a,1991b,1991c;Swift eta!. 1991).
Of the43 remainingpopulationsoftidewatergobiesidentifiedby Swift~etci. (1990),mostaresmall andthreatenedby a variety of humanandnaturalfactors.According to Swift etai.(1990),only eight extantlocalitiescontainpopulationsthat areconsideredlargeenoughandfreeenoughfromhabitatdegradationto besafefor theimmediatefuture. Theseareasarealllocatednorthof SanFranciscoBay. Theremaininglagoonsareso smallormodifled that tidewatergobypopulationsarerestrictedindistribution andvulnerabletoelimination (Swift eta!. 1989,1990).Thenumberof extirpatedlocalitiesofgobieshasleft remainingpopulationssowidely separatedthroughoutmostofthespecies’rangethat recolonizationi.sunlikely.
Severalspecificproposedandongoingcoastaldevelopmentactivitiesthreatenhabitatssupportingtidewatergobies,including roadwidening andbridgereplacementprojectsalongHighway 101.waterdiversionprojectsin SanLuis ObispoCounty,expansionof severalStatePark RecreationareasinSantaBarbaraandSanLuis ObispoCounties,andhotel andgolf coursedevelopmentsin SanLuis Obispo andMann Counties.
In addition to thesespecific threats,thetidewatergoby is vulnerablethroughoutits remainingrangebecauseof the lossof coastalmarsh,as notedabove,andbecauseof othereffectsofwaterdiversionsaswell. In additiontorestrictingthegoby’soverallrangebyalteringdownstreamsalinities,waterdiversionsandalterationsof waterflowsmay nega~iveIyimpactthespecies’breedingandforagingactivities.Gobiesin southernandcentralCaliforniabreedprimarily in sand/mudsubstratesandapparentlyavoidareasthatcontain large
amo’trntsof decayingvegetation(Holland ig9ib).Reductionsin waterflows mayallow aggressiveplantspeciesto colonizethe otherwisebaresand/mudsubstratesof coastallagoonmargins,thus degradingthehabitatquality for the goby. Decreasesin streamflows alsoreducethedeepstreampoolsutilized by gobiesventuringupstreamfrom lagoons.In SanLuis ObispoCounty alone,theeffectsof drought,eitherdirectly or exacerbatedbyupstreamwaterdiversions,havebeenresponsiblefor theextirpationof at leastthreepopulationsof gobiesbetween1986to 1990 (K. Worcester,CaliforniaDepartmentof Fish andGame,pers.comm., 1991).
Thetidewatergoby is alsoadverselyaffectedby groundwateroverdraftingariddischargeof agriculturalandsewageeffluents.For example,in SantaBarbaraCounty,increasedgroundwaterpumpageandsiltation from topsoilrunoff in theSanAntonio Creekdrainagehassignificantly affectedareasimmediatelyupstreamof occupiedgobyhabitat (i.e., BarkaSlough)(C. Swift, LosAngelesCountyMuseumof NaturalHistory, pers.comm., 1991). Enrichmentby agriculturalandsewageeffluentsmay causealgalbloomsanddeoxygenationthatrestricthabitableareasof lagoonsutilized by tidewatergobies,especiallyin summer (Swift etal. 1989).The potential for thesefactorsto degraderemaininggoby habitatshasalsobeennotedat all threeextantlocalitiessouthof VenturaCounty(D.Holland,pers.comm., 1991)andatseveralsitesalongthecentralCaliforniacoast(T. Taylor, CaliforniaStateParksandRecreation,pers.comm., 1991; K.Worcester,pers.comm., 1991).
Thetidewatergoby is furtherthreatenedby channelizationof therivers it inhabits.Becausemost ofthegoby’s localitieshavebeenmoderatelyto extremelychannelized.winter floodsscourthespeciesout of therestrictedchannelizedareaswhereno protectionis affordedfrom suchhigh flows. Thistype of eventwasresponsiblefor thedisappearanceof gobiesfrom WaddellCreeklagoonin thewinter 1972—73(C.Swift, pers.comm., 1991).
Finally, cattlegrazingandferal pigactivity presenta threat to theexistenceof thetidewatergohy.Theseactivitieshaveresultedin increasedsedimentationof coastallagoonsandriparianhabitats,removalof vegetativecover,increasedambientwatertemperatures,andeliminationof plungepoolsandcollapsedundercutbanksutilized by tidewatergobies.In SanLuisObispoCounty,increasedsedimentationinto Morro Bayhassignificantlyacceleratedtheconversionof wetland
habitatsto upland habitats (Josselyneta]. 1989). Presently,cattlecontinuetograzefreelyboth upstreamandin manyof thecoastallagoonssupportingtidewatergobies(K. Worcester,pers.comm., 1991).
B. Overut.ilizationfor commercial,recreational,scientific,or educationalpurposes.Not knownto beapplicable.
C. Diseaseor predation.Overthepast20years,at least60 speciesof exoticfisheshavebeenintroducedto thewesternUnited States,59 percentofwhich arepredatory(HayesandJennings1986. Jennings1988).Theintroductionof exoticpredatorstosouthernCaliforniawatershasbeenfacilitatedby the interbasintransportofwater(e.g., CaliforniaAqueduct).Introducedpredators,particulari~’centrarchidfishes,may havecontributedto theelimination of thetidewatergoby from severallocalitiesinCalifornia(Swift eta]. 1989). Thepresentdayabsenceof thetidewatergoby from theSanFranciscodeltaareamaywell beexplainedby thepresenceof introducedpredatorssuchasstripedbass(Moronesaxatilis)andnativepredatorsincluding theSacramentoperch(Archoplitesinterruptus)(Swift eta]. 1989, 1990). Two of themost recentdisappearancesof gobiesfrom SanLuisObispoCounty (Old Creek)andSanDiegoCounty (SanOnofre Creek)arelikely dueto thepresenceof exoticlargemouthbass(Micropteroussalmoides)andgreensunfish (Lepomiscyanellus),respectively.Naturalpredationon gobiesby rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)hasbeendocumented(Swift et a). 1989). Othernon-nativepredators,specificallycrayfish(Cambanisspp.)andmosquitofish(Gambusiaspp.),may alsothreatengohy populationsthroughdirect predationon adults,larvae,oreggs.
D. Theinadequacyof existingregulatorymechanisms.Section10 oftheRiversandHarborsAct andsection404of theCleanWaterAct regulatetheplacementof dredgeandfill materialsinto watersof theUnited States.Undersection404,nationwidepermits,whichundergominimal public andagencyreview,canbe issuedfor projectsinvolving lessthan 10 acresof watersoftheUnited Statesandadjacentwetlands,unlessa listedspeciesmay beadverselyaffected.Individual permits,whicharesubjectto moreextensivereview,arerequiredfor projectsthataffectgreaterthan 10 acres.
The U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers(Corps)is theagencyresponsibleforadministeringthesection10 andsection404programs.The Service,as partofthesection404review process,provides
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 24 I Friday, February 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 5497
commentson bothpredlschargenoticesfor nationwidepermitsandpublicnoticesfor Individual permits. TheService’scommentsareonly advisory,although proceduresexist for elevationwhendisagreementsbetweentheagendasarise,in practice,theCorps’actionsundersection10and section404 areinsufficientto protectthetidewater goby.
Most projectswithin therange of thetidewater goby consideredin thisproposalmay require approval from theCorps ascurrentlydescribedin section404 of the Clean Water Act. Projectsproposedin coastallagoonsmay alsorequire a permit undersection10of theRiversandHarborsAct. Federallistingof thisspeciesrequiresFederalagenciesto insure their actionsarenot likely tojeopardizethe tidewater goby’scontinuedexistenceor destroyoradverselymodify anyhabitatthat isdesignatedascritical.
TheNational EnvironmentalPolicyAct andCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act requirean intensiveenvironmentalreview of projectsthatmayadverselyaffectFederalcandidatespecies.However,projectproponentsare not requiredto avoid Impacts tothesespecies,andproposedmitigationmeasuresarefrequentlynot adequatelyimplemented.As with section404permits,the Service’scommentsthroughtheseenvironmentalreviewprocessesareonly advisory.
The CaliforniaCoastalAct regulatesthe approvalof developmentswithinthe coastalzone.Althougha significantslowing in wetlandlosseshasoccurred,thecontinuedlossanddegradationofcoastalwetlandssincethe CaliforniaCoastalAct wasenactedin 1974atteststo the limitations of this legislation.
E. Other natumi or manmadefac’torsaffectingitscontinuedexistence.By far,themost significant natural factoradverselyaffectingthe tidewater goby isdroughtandresultantdeteriorationofcoastalandriparianhabitats. Californiahas recentlyexperienced5 consecutiveyearsof lowerthanaveragerainfall.Thesedrought conditions,whencombined withhuman inducedwaterreductions (i.e., diversions of water fromstreams,excessivegroundwaterwithdrawals), have degradedcoastaland riparianecosystemsandhavecreatedextremelystressfulconditionsfor most aquatic species.Formerlylargepopulations of tidewater gobieshavedeclinedin numbersbecauseof thereducedavailability of suitable lagoonhabitats (I.e., SanSiineonCreek,PicoCreek),othersdisappearedwhenthelagoonsdried (i.e., SantaRosa Creek).InSan Luis Obispo Countyalone,6 of 20populations of tidewater gobieswere
extirpatedbetween1984 and1989becauseof drought,waterdiversions,andpollution (K. Worcester, pers.comm.,1991).
Habitat degradationand lossesof thetidewatergoby from weather reMtedphenomenacommonlyoccurdue to therestrictionof thespeciestocoastallagoonsystemsandits dependenceonfreshwaterinflows. Eventssuchasriverfloodingandheavyrainfall havebeenreportedtodestroygobyburrowsandwashgoblesout tosea.Storm surgesthatentera lagoonmayalsoadverselyaffectentiregoby populationsby rapidlychangingits salinity.
Thetidewatergobywasundoubtedlysubjectedto suchnaturalflood eventsevenbeforemajorhumanalterationofdrainagebasins.As mentionedunderFactorA, channelizationandurbanizationhaveincreasedthefrequencyandperhapstheintensityofsuchflood events,In addition,populationsofgobiesarebecomingmoreisolatedfrom oneanotherasInterveningpopulationsareextirpated,thusfurtherdecreasingthelikelihood ofsuccessfullycolonizingandreestablishinga populationlost to a“natural” flood.
Competitionwith Introducedspeciesis a potentialthreatto thetidewatergoby. Althoughproblemshavenotbeendocumentedsofar, thespread of twoIntroducedoriental gobies(yeliowfingoby (Acanthogob4usfiovimanus)andchameleongoby (Tridentigertrigonoceplioius))mayhaveadetrimentaleffecton thetidewatergoby.Accordingto Swift at aL (1990),thechameleongoby wasrecentlyfoundInPyramidLake,probablyimportedwithcentralCaliforniawater.If this gobybecomesestablishedin theSantaClaraRiverasotherImportedspecieshave(e.g.,prickly scu.lpin (Cottusasper)), thetidewatergoby populationat the mouthof the SantaClaraRivermaybe atrisk.
TheServicehascarefullyassessedthebestscientificand commercialinformation availableregardingthe past,present,andfuturethreatsfacedby thisspeciesin determiningto make thisrulefinal. The tidewatergoby hasbeenextirpatedfrom nearly50 percentof thelagoonswithin its historicrange,Including 74 percentof the lagoonssouth of Morro Bay. Forty1hreepopulationsremain;however,only sixarelargein numberandreasonablyfreefrom immediatethreats.Basedon thisevaluation,the preferred action is to listthetidewater goby asendangered.Thetidewater goby hasexperiencedasubstantial declinethroughoutitshistoric rangeand facesthreatsindicating thatthis downward trendislikely tocontinue.Thisspecieslives
within specifichabitatzonesthat havebeen,andWiII continue tobe,targetedfor developmentanddegradationbyhumanactivities.Thegoby is extremelyvulnerabletoadversehabitatmodification andwaterqualitychanges.Thetidewatergoby is in imminentdangerof extinctionthroughoutitsrangeandrequiresthe full protectionoflisting asendangeredunderthe Act tosurvive.Forreasonsdiscussedbelow,theServiceis notproposingto designatecritical habitatfor thisfish speciesatthis time.
Critical Habitat
Section4(a)(3)of the Act, asamended,requires that, to themaximumextentprudentanddeterminable,theSecretarydesignatecritical habitatconcurrentlywith determininga speciesto beendangeredor threatened.Furthermore,theServiceis to designatecritical habitatonthebasisof thebestscientificandcommercialdataavailableafter takinginto considerationtheeconomicandotherrelevantimpactsofspecifyinganareaascritical habitat(16USC 153~(b~(2~.In the caseof thetidewatergoby,criticalhabitat is notpresentlydeterminable.A finaldesignationof critical habitatrequiresdetailedinformationon thepossibleeconomiceffectsofauchadesignation.TheServicedoesnotcurrentlyhavesufficientInformationneededtoperformthe economicanalysis.A delayIn thedeterminationto list the speciesto gatheradditional Informationandperformanalyseswould not servetheneedsof thespecies.InformationIsneededonactionsthatmaybeproposedwithin tidewatergoby habitatandthedegreeto which a designationof criticalhabitatmay affecttheseactionsoverandaboveeffectsassociatedwith listing thegoby asendangered(i.e.,the jeopardystandardalone).It will alsobenecessaryto determine how and towhat extentapplicationof thedestruction/adversemodificationstandardwill changevariousFederalactions.Thesedatawillbeusedin the economicanalysestodeterminetheeconomiceffectsofcritical habitat designation.
AvailableConservationMeasuresConservationmeasuresprovidedto
specieslistedasendangeredorthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct Includerecognition,recoveryactions,requirementsforFederal protection,andprohibitionsagainstcertainactivities.Recognitionthroughlisting encouragesandresultsin conservationactionsby Federal,State,and private agencies,groups,andIndividuals. The EndangeredSpeciesAct providesfor possibleland
5498 Frrleral Register / Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 1~�94/ Rules and Regulations
acquisition andcooperation with theStatesandrequires that recovery actionsbe carried out for all listed species.Theprotection required of Federal agenciesand theprohibitionsagainsttaking andharm arediscussed,in part,below.
Section7~a)of theAct, asamended,requiresFederal agenciesto evaluatetheir actionswith respectto anyspeciesthat is proposedor listed asendangeredor threatenedandwith respectto itscritical habitat,if any is beingdesignated.Regulationsimplementingthis interagencycooperation provisionof the Actarecodifiedat 50 CFR part402. Section7(a)(2) requiresFederalagenciesto ensurethat activities theyauthorize,fund,or carry out arenotlikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof sucha speciesor to destroyor adverselymodify its critical habitat.If a Federalactionmay affectalistedspeciesor its critical habitat, theresponsibleFederal agencymust enterinto formal consultation with theService.
A numberof Federalagenciesordepartmentscontrol lands that supportthetidewatergoby.TheseincludetheDepartmentof Defense(U.S.ArmyCorpsof Engineers,U.S. Navy, U.S. AirForce,andU.S. MarineCorps),Department of Agriculture (U.S. ForestService), andDepartmentof the interior(NationalParkServiceandU.S. Fishand Wildlife Service).Federal actionsthat may be affectedby thisdeterminationwould be the fundingorauthorization of projects within thespecies’habitat, including theconstruction of roads,bridges, anddredgingprojectssubjectto section404of theCleanWaterAct (33U.S.C. 1344etseq.)andsection10 of the RiversandHarborsAct of 1899(33 U.s.c.401 etseq.),and specialuse permits. OtherFederal actions that are subject toenvironmentalreviewundertheNational Environmental Policy Actwould alsorequireconsultationwith
theService.Projectson federally ownedlandwould also be subjectto theprovisionsof section 7 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct.
The Act and implementingregulationsfound at 50CFR 17.21 setfortha seriesof generalprohibitions andexceptionsthat apply to all endangeredwildlife. Theseprohibitions, in part,would makeit illegal for any personsubject to the jurisdictionof the UnitedStatesto take (includesharass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound, kill, trap,capture, or collect; or attempt any ofthese),importor export, transport ininterstateor foreign commercein thecourseof commercialactivity, or sell oroffer for salein interstate or foreigncommerceany listed species.It also isillegal to possess,sell,deliver, carry,transport,or ship any suchwildlife thathas beentaken illegally. Certainexceptionsapplyto agentsof theServiceand Stateconservationagencies.
The Act and 50 CFR17.22and17.23also provide for the issuanceof permitsto carryout otherwiseprohibitedactivitiesinvolving endangeredwildlifespeciesunder certaincircumstances.Such permits areavailable for scientificpurposes.to enhancethe propagation orsurvival of the species,for incidentaltakein connectionwith otherwiselawful activities,and for economichardship under certain circumstances.Requestsfor copiesof theregulationsonlisted plantsandwildlife andinquiriesregardingthem maybeaddressedto theU.S. Fish andWildlife Service,EcologicalServices,PermitBranch,911N.E. 11th Avenue,Portland,Oregon97232—4181,telephone503!231—6241,FAX 503/231—6243.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fishand Wildlife Servicehasdeterminedthat an EnvironmentalAssessmentor Environmental ImpactStatement,asdefinedundertheauthorityof theNationalEnvironmental
PolicyAct of 1969,neednot beprepared in connectionwith regulationsadopted pursuant to section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973,asamended.A noticeoutlining theService’sreasonsfor this determinationwas published in the Federal Registeron October25, 1983 (48F’R 49244).
ReferencesCited
A complete list of all referencescitedherein, aswell as others, is availableupon requestfrom the Ventura FieldOffice (seeADDRESSES section).
AuthorsThe primaryauthorsof this final rule
areDoima C. Brewer. Cathy Brown, andThomas Davidson of the Ventura FieldOffice (seeADDRESSES section).
List ofSubjectsin 50 CFRPart 17
Endangeredand threatened species,Exports,imports,Reportingandrecordkeepingrequirements,Transportation.
RegulationPromulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B ofchapterI, title 50of theCodeof FederalRegulations,is amended as set forthbelow:
PART 17.—(AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17continuesto readas 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;unlessotherwisenoted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h)by adding thefollowing species,in alphabetical orderunder thegroupFISHES,to theList ofEndangeredandThreatenedWildlife toreadas follows:
~ 17.12 Endangeredand threatenedwildlife.* * * * *
(h) * * *
SpeciesHistoric range
Vertebratepopu-lation whereendan-geredor threatened
Status Whenlisted.
~ ~1
taruesCommonname Scientific name
Fishes
Goby. tidewater EucyclogobiusnewberiyL
U.S.A. (CA) Entire E 527 NA NA
FederalRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February4, 1994 / Rulesand Regulations 5499
DatecLJanuary31, 1994.Mollie H.Bea*tis,Director,FishandWildlifeService.IFR Doc.94—2546Filed 2—3—94; 8:45am)
sees
DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR
Fish andWildlife Service
50 CFR Past 17
RIN 1018—AB73
Endangered andThreatened Wlidlifaand Plants; Endangered Status forThree Plants and Threatened Status forOnePlant From Sandy andSedimentarySoils of Central CoastalCalifornia
AGENCY: FishandWildlife Service,Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. FishandWildlifeService(Service)determinesendangeredstatuspursuanttotheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973,asamended(Act), for three plants:Chonzcnthepungensvar.hartwegiana(BenLoinondspineflowes(alsopreviouslyknownasHartweg’sspineflower)),Chorizontherobusto(inclusiveof var. hartwegiiandvar.robusta) (robustspineflower),andErysimumtaretifolium (BenLomondwallflower). The Servicealsodeterminesthreatenedstatusfor oneplant:Chorizanthepungensvar.pungens(Montereyspineflower).Thesefour taxao~urincoastalhabitatsofsouthernSantaCrux,andnorthernMonterey Countiesandareimperiledbyoneor moreof the following factors:Habitatdestructionduetoresidentialandgel!coursedevelopment,agriculturallandconversion,sandmining,military activities,andencroachmentby alienplantspecies.This rule Implementstheprotectionandrecoveryprovisionsaffordedby theActfor theseplants.
EFFECTIVE DATEI March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES~Thecomplete file for thisrule Is availableforpublic inspection,by appointment,duringnormalbusinesshoursattheU.S.FIshandWildlifeService,VenturaFieldOffice. 2140EastmanAvenue,Suite100, Ventura,CalifornIa93003.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:ConnieRutherfordat theaboveaddress(805/644—1766).
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
BackgroundC.horizanthepungensBenth.var.
hartwegianoReveal& Hardhain,ChorizantherobustoParryvar. hartwegii(Benth.in A. DCI). andBrysimumteretifaliwnEastwoodareendemictosandstoneandmudstonedepositsin theSantaCruzMountainsin SantaCruzCounty,California.ChorizanthepungensBenthvat.pungensandChorizantherobusta Parryvar. robesteareendemicto sandysoilsof coastalhabitatsin southernSantaCruzandnorthernMontereyCounties.
TheSantaCruzMountainsarearelativelyyoungrangecomposedofigneousandmetamorphicrocksoverlainby thick layersof sedimentarymaterialuplifted from theoceanfloorandancientshorelinezone(CaughmanandGInsberg1987).Theseancientmarineterracespersistaspocketsofsandstonesandliinestonesthataregeologicallydistinctfrom thevolcanicoriginsof therange.Soilsthat form fromthesesandstoneandlimestonedepositstendto becoarseand,at leastsurficially, lose soil moisturerapidly.Themoremesicslopesof theSantaCruzMountainsarecoveredprimarily byredwoodforest (Zinke1988)andmixedevergreenforest(Sawyerat al. 1988).
in contrast,thedrierpocketsofsandstoneandlimestone,referredto asthe ‘Ben Lomondsaudhills”(Thomas1961),supporttwo uniquecommunities—maritimecoastrangeponderosapineforestandnorthernmaritimechaparral(Griffin 1964,Holland1986k.Theponderosapineforest, locally referredtoas“ponderosapinesandhill”or“ponderosapinesandparkiand”(CaliforniaNativePlantSociety1986,MarangloandMorgan1987),consistsof anopenpark-likeforestof scatteredponderosapine(Pinusponderaso)with knobconepine(Pinusattenuate),coastlive oak(Qpercusogrifolia), andat a fewsites,the federallyendangeredSantaCruzcypress(Cupressus obramsil). Thesestandslntergradewith anotheruniquecommunity,northernmaritimechaparral,locally referredtoassilver-leafmanzanitamixedchaparral(Maranglo1985,MarangloandMorgan1987),andaredominatedby theendemicsilver-leavedinanzanita(ArctostaphyIossilvicoio).
As uplift of theSantaCruzMountainsproceeded,someof theraisedmarineterracesof sandstoneandlimestonewereburledbeneathlayersofsedimentarymaterialdepositedbyflowing water.Pocketsofthisalluvialmaterial,referredto as SantaCruzmudstcne,persistedduringthisprocess
of mountainuplifting andalluvialmovement In the ScottaValley area.mudstoneoutcropssupportannualgrassesandherbaceousspecies.Thesecommunitieswerereferredto asannualgrasslandsandwildflower fieldsbyHolland (1986).
Discussionof theFourSpeciesIn California,the spineflowergenus
(Chorizanthe~in thebuckwheatfamily(Potygonacaae)comprisesspeciesofwiry annualherbsthat Inhabitdrysandysoilsalongthe coast and Inland.Becauseof thepatchyandlimiteddistributionof suchsoils,manyspeciesof Chorizonthetendtobehighlylocalizedin theirdistribution.
Onesubsectionof thegenusreferredto asPungentesconsistsof sevenspeciesdistinguishedby the followingfeatures:Theinner andoutertepels(petal-likesepals)areof equallengthandareentireor lobedbut not fringed,filamentsarefree, lnvolucres(whorl ofbractssubtendingtheflowers)are6-toothed with thealternatingthreeshorterandthe anterioroneslightlylong-awned,Involucralmarginsarenotcontinuouslymembranaceousacrossthesinuses,the numberof stamensarevariable(3—9),andplantsaredecumbentto erectwith spreadingpubescenceandaredistributedmainlyon or near thecoastfrom SantaBarbaraCountynorthwardto Mendocino(RevealandHardham1989).
Although three of thesevenspeciesInthe sectionPungentesarestill thoughtto be common,the remaining fourspeciesarebecomingIncreasinglyrare.Twoof thesespecies(Chorizonthehowellil and C. w.thda) werelistedasendangeredonJune22, 1992(57FR27848). Theremainingtwo species,C.pungensandC. robusta,inclusiveoftheir varieties,aresubjectsof this rule.
Chorizanthepungenswasfirstdescribedby GeorgeBentham in 1836basedona specimencollectedInMonterey.Thistaxon wasrecognizedbyGeorgeGoodmanin1934asthe typespedesIn describingthe Pungentessectionof the genus.At that time,GoodmanalsorecognizedC.pungensvar. hartwe’!, previouslydescribedandIdentifiedasC. dougloslivar. hartwegilby Benthamin 1856.It wasnamedafterKarl Hartwegwho collectedthetypefrom “dry mountainpasturesnearSantaCruz” in 1847 (RevealandHardham1989).
CJrorizanthepungensvar.hartwe,Janawasdistinguished from C.pungenavat. pungensby JamesRevealandClareHardham(1989)aftertheynoticedadifferencebetweenthecoastalform anden inland formfound ‘ln theBenLomondsandhills area.”The name
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungenswasretainedto representthe coastalform oftheplant.RevealandHardhamnotedthat thetypefor C. purigensvar.hartwegianowasdissimilar to theplantthat wascalled C. pungensvar.hartwegli.
The recentarticledescribingChorizanthe(RevealandHardham1989) treatsC. pungensvar. pungensand C. pungensvar. hartwegiana asdistinctvarieties.Though Hickman(1993)did not treat Chorizanthepungensvar. hartwegianaseparatelyinThe)epsonManual,hedid statethatplantswith “more erectpetalswith pinkto purpleinvolucralmarginshavebeencalled var. hartwegianaRev. &Hardham.”For the purposesof this finalrule, the Servicelists C. pungensvar.pungens and C. pungens var.hartwegiana separatelybecausetheformer variety qualifies for threatenedstatusandthelatterqualifies forendangeredstatusunder the Act. Evenif the conservativeHickman (1993)treatmentwereused,C. pungens(inclusiveof vars.pungensandhart wegiana)facesthe samethreats asdescribedunder the section entitled“Summary of FactorsAffecting theSpecies”andwould qualify for listingundertheAct.
Chorizantherobustawasfirstdescribedby CharlesParryin 1889basedona collectionhemade6 yearsearlier “north of Aptos alongMontereyBay’ (Parry1889).Willis Jepsonconsideredit to beavarietyof C.pungensand thuscombined the taxonunder thenameC. pungensvar. robustain his Flora of California in 1914 (Jepson1914).In their revision of the genusin1989,RevealandHardham(1989)recognizedParry’streatmentandretained the taxonasC. robusta.Althoughtheyplacedin this synonymythe typeof C. pungensvar. hartwegii,RevealandHardhamnotedthat thedefinition of the taxonwasstill notsettledwith their review.
Concurrentwith the publicationofthe RevealandHardhamrevision,thefirst collectionin over 50 yearswasmadeof theinland form thatmatchedHartweg’soriginal collectionmadein1847.Revealwas therefore able toreconfirm its affinity with Chorizantherobusta, while recognizingthedistinctnessof this taxonasa variety.Reveal,alongwith local botanistRandallMorgan,publishedthecombination C. robustavar. hartwegil(RevealandMorgan1989),inclusive ofthetype of C. pungensvar. hartwegil.
TherecentarticledescribingChorizanthe robustavar. hortwegii(RevealandMorgan1989)treatsC.robustavar. robustaandC. robustavar.
hartwegilas distinct varieties.ThoughHickman(1993)did not treatC. robustavar. hartwegiiseparatelyin The JepsonManual, hedid statethatplantswith“more erectpetalswith pink involucralmarginshavebeencalledvar. hartwegii(Benth.)Rev. & it Morgan.”Forthepurposesof this listing, the Serviceaddsthe entire speciesof C. robusta(inclusiveof C. robusta var. hartwegiland C. robustavar. robusta) to the Listof Endangeredand ThreatenedWildlifeand Plants. -
During the Service’sreview of apetitionto list Chorizarithe robustavar.hartwegli, Dr. John Thomas questionedthe taxonomicvalidity of Chorizantherobusta var. hartwegii (JohnThomas,StanfordUniversity,in Iitt., 1990).Toaddresstheseconcerns,the Servicereviewed specimensof Chorizantherobustavar. hartwegiiand othercloselyrelated taxa in the Pungentessubsectionof the genus with plant taxonomistsatthe University of California. TheService’sreview indicatesthatspecimensascribedto C. pungensandC. robustahave five morphologicallyrecognizablephasesthat correspond toecologicalandgeographicalpatterns.Fourofthesefive phasesgenerallycorrespondto C. pungensvar. pungens,C. pungensvar. hartwegiana,C. robustavar. robusta,and C. robustavar.hartwegii.The fifth phaseconsistsofspecimensthat were identified as C.robustaor C. pungens(Ertter1990).Thisfinal rule, by addressingthesubjectfourvarietiesof Chorizonthe,includesallfive phasesreviewed.
Chorizanthepungensvar. pungensandChorizanthe robusta var. robustaare endemicto sandysoilsof coastalhabitats in southernSantaCruzandnorthernMontereyCounties. The innerrim of Monterey Bay is characterizedbybroad, sandybeachesbackedby anextensivedune formation. Just inlandfrom the immediatecoast, maritimechaparraloccupiesareaswith well-drainedsoils.Coastaldune andcoastalscrubcommunitiesexist along the innerrim of Monterey Bay, but portions wereaffectedby habitat modification ordestruction.
Chorizanthepungensvar. pungens(Montereyspineflower)haswhite(rarely pinkish)scariousmarginson theinvolucral lobesanda prostratetoslightly ascendinghabit that distinguishit from Chorizanthepungensvar.hartwegiana.The aggregateof flowers(heads)tendto be small (lessthan 1centimeter (cm) (0.4 inches(in)) indiameter) andeitherdistinctly orindistinctly aggregate.The plant isfound scatteredonsandy soilswithincoastaldune,coastalscrub, grassland,maritime chaparral. andoakwoodland
communitiesalong and adjacentto thecoastof southernSantaCniz andnorthernMonterey Counties and inlandto the coastalplain of SalinasValley.Historically the plant rangedalongthecoastfrom southernSantaCruzCountysouthto northernSanLuis ObispoCounty and from Monterey inland to theSalinasValley. Only onecollectiondating from 1842wasmadefromnorthern SanLuis Obispo County;however, in recentyears it wasnotcollectedsouthof MontereyPeninsula(Revealand Hardham 1989).
Alongthe immediatecoast,Ghorizanthepun,gensvar. pungenswasdocumentedatManresaStateBeachandthe dunesnearMarina.The plantprobablywasextirpatedfrom a numberof historical locationsin theSalinasValley, primarily due to conversion ofthe original grasslandsandvalley oakwoodlandsto agriculturalcrops(RevealandHardham1989). Significantpopulations of Chorizanthepungensvar. pungens, representingupwards of70 percent ofthe rangeof the plant,were recently documentedfrom FortOrd (Army Corpsof Engineers1992).Thesesurveysindicatedthatwithingrasslandcommunitiestheplantoccursalongroadsides,in firebreaks,andinother disturbed sites. In oakwoodland,chaparral,and scrub communities,theplantsoccurin sandyopeningsbetweenshrubs. In older standswith a highcover of shrubs, the plant is restricted toroadsidesandfirebreaksthat bisectthesecommunities.The highestdensitiesof C. pungensvar. pungensarelocatedin the central portion of thefiring range,where disturbanceis themost frequent. Although studieswerenot conductedon factorsthat determinethe pattern of distribution and thedensitiesof C. pungensvar. pungensonFort Ord, a correlation existsbetweenopenconditionsresulting from activitiesthat disturb habitat and high densitiesofC. pungensvar. pungens.Prior to onsetof human useof this area, this specieswaspossiblyrestrictedto openingscreatedby wildfires within thesecommunities.
Chorizantherobusta(robustspineflower) is comprisedof twovarieties:C. robustavar. robustaand C.robustovar. hartwegii.A description ofthe speciesis broken out below byvariety.
Chorizantherobustavar. robustohasthin white to pinkish scariousmarginsalong thebasalportions of the teeth andan erect to spreadingor prostrate habit.The headsare large (1.5 to 2 cm (0.6to0.8 in) in diameter) and distinctlyaggregate.The plant oncerangedfromAlameda to Monterey Counties,but iscurrently known only from sandy and
