[PCA] 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Sidalcea hendersonii (Henderson's checkermallow) as Threatened or Endangered
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Thu Feb 16 15:16:48 CST 2006
The following announcement concerns, Sidalcea hendersonii, Henderson's
checkermallow, a wetland species native to the West Coast (OR, WA and AK).
http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2006/February/Day-16/
=======================================================================
[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8252-8257]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Sidalcea hendersonii (Henderson's checkermallow) as
Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Sidalcea hendersonii (Henderson's
checkermallow) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We
find the petition does not provide substantial scientific information
indicating that listing S. hendersonii may be warranted. Therefore, we
will not be initiating a further status review in response to this
petition, however, we ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the status of the species
or threats to it.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on February 16,
2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by any of the following methods:
(1) E-mail: <A HREF="mailto:Liz_Kelly at fws.gov">Liz_Kelly at fws.gov</A>.
Include Sidalcea hendersonii
(Henderson's checkermallow) in the subject line of the message.
(2) Fax: 503-231-6195.
(3) Mail: Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266-1398.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-deliver documents to our
office (see mailing address above).
The petition and supporting information are available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Kelly, Newport Field Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2127 SE. Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR
97365; or by electronic mail to <A HREF="mailto:Liz_Kelly at fws.gov
">Liz_Kelly at fws.gov</A> (telephone: 541-867-
4558; fax: 541-867-4551). Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific information to indicate that the petitioned
action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, this
finding is to be made within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and
the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
This finding summarizes the information included in the petition
and information available to us at the time of the petition review.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations in 50 CFR
424.14(b), our review of a 90-day finding is limited to a determination
of whether the information in the petition meets the ``substantial
scientific information'' threshold. Our standard for substantial
scientific information with regard to a 90-day listing petition finding
is ``that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted''
(50 CFR 424.14(b)).
We have to satisfy the Act's requirement that we use the best
available science to make our decisions. However, we do not conduct
additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to
rigorous critical review. Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the
information, to the extent that they appear to be based on accepted
scientific principles (such as citing published and peer reviewed
articles, or studies done in accordance with valid methodologies),
unless we have specific information to the contrary. Our finding
considers whether the petition states a reasonable case for listing on
its face. Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no view as to the ultimate
issue of whether the species should be listed.
On December 29, 2003, the Service received a petition dated
December 15, 2003, from Dr. Rhoda Love on behalf of The Native Plant
Society of Oregon (NPSO) requesting that the Service list Sidalcea
hendersonii (Henderson's checkermallow) as a threatened or endangered
species under the Act. Action on this petition was precluded by nearly
all of our listing funds being obligated to court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions.
The petition contained detailed information on the natural history
of Sidalcea hendersonii, its population status, and existing threats to
the species. Potential threats discussed in the petition include
destruction and modification of habitat, predation, inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors
such as flooding and siltation. In response to the petitioner's request
to list S. hendersonii, the Service sent a letter to the petitioner
dated February 13, 2004, explaining that initial review of the petition
did not indicate that an emergency listing was warranted and that the
Service would review the petition and determine whether or not the
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that
listing S. hendersonii may be warranted.
On January 17, 2006, we received additional information from the
NPSO dated January 7, 2006, related to the petition. The additional
information included an analysis of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program (WNHP) 2005 report on the Washington Status of Sidalcea
hendersonii (Henderson's checkermallow).
Species Information
Sidalcea hendersonii was first recorded in 1841 by botanist William
Breckenridge in southwestern Washington. Two more specimens were
collected from British Columbia on Saturna Island in 1858 and Vancouver
Island in 1883. Originally identified as either S. malvaeflora or S.
campestris, the specimens were not recognized as S. hendersonii until
examined by Eva M. F. Roush for her 1931 monograph on the genus.
Sidalcea hendersonii did not gain its scientific name until 1887. In
Oregon, the plant was first collected by Louis F. Henderson on July 3,
1887, on the Columbia River estuary ``near Clatsop Bay.'' Two weeks
earlier on June 15, 1887, the plant had been collected by Thomas
Jefferson Howell at the mouth of the Umpqua River and labeled as S.
campestris Greene. The
[[Page 8253]]
plant was re-annotated in 1930 as S. hendersonii Watson by Eva Roush
and then later in 1952 by C. Leo Hitchcock (Gisler and Love 2005; H.
Kesner, pers. comm. 2005).
Sidalcea hendersonii, in the mallow family (Malvaceae), is a
perennial herb with pinkish-lavender to pinkish-purple flowers borne in
clusters at the end of 1.6 to 5 foot (ft) (0.5 to 1.5 meter (m)) tall
stems. Inflorescences (flowering parts of the plant) are spikelike
(Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). The flower is distinguished from other
Sidalcea species primarily by its habitat and by its glabrous (lacking
hairs) foliage and smooth carpels (modified leaf forming the ovary)
(Gisler and Love 2005). Sidalcea hendersonii is a gynodioecious
species, which means that the plants have either perfect flowers (male
and female) or pistillate (female) flowers. The plant can reproduce
vegetatively by rhizomes (horizontal underground stems) and produces
seeds that drop near the parent plant (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973).
Flowering typically occurs from June to August.
Sidalcea hendersonii occurs sporadically in coastal areas from
Douglas County, Oregon, to Chilkat Peninsula, Alaska. Prior to 2003,
when it was discovered in Howard Bay on the southern tip of the Chilkat
Peninsula, the known range only extended as far north as southwestern
British Columbia, Canada.
The historical record contains uncertainty as to the number of
sites that supported Sidalcea hendersonii populations. In Oregon, 10
locations were documented (Gisler and Love 2005); in Washington there
were 47 documented sites (WNHP 2005). Based on surveys from 2002-2005,
23 extant populations have been documented in Washington. If
populations found since 1980 (but not necessarily revisited in 2002-
2005) are included, Washington may support as many as 32 populations
(WNHP 2005). Populations in British Columbia appear to be less
intensively studied, with at least 30 extant populations today (J.
Penny, pers. comm. 2005a). We do not have information on the number of
historical populations for British Columbia. The single population
discovered in Alaska in 2003 is well-documented.
Based on information in our files, nine of the ten historical
populations of Sidalcea hendersonii found in Clatsop, Tillamook, Lane,
and Douglas Counties may have been extirpated from Oregon. The record
for the remaining population cited in the petition, the Siuslaw River
estuary population in Lane County, is unclear. As documented by L.F.
Henderson in 1931, the location is described as ``Sandy flats of
Siuslaw Bay just above tide, Florence'' (Table 1 in NPSO 2003). Based
on this description, a single population may no longer be in existence,
and may have shifted to form two extant populations associated with Cox
Island in the Siuslaw River estuary and Bull Island in the North Fork
Siuslaw River. In addition to these two populations in Oregon,
introductions of S. hendersonii occurred in 2005 at Siletz Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, Lincoln County and at Blacks and Goose Islands, Umpqua
River, Douglas County (M.Gisler, pers. comm. 2005), resulting in a
total of four populations in Oregon.
Sidalcea hendersonii occurs in a habitat unlike that occupied by
other members of its genus. It is found in tidally-influenced high salt
marsh or the brackish transition zone of coastal marshes (WNHP 2005;
Gisler and Love 2005). The top seven indicators of suitable habitat for
S. hendersonii in Oregon and Washington at five sites were Argentina
egedii (Potentilla pacifica) (silverweed), Juncus balticus (Baltic
rush), Angelica lucida (sea-watch), Achillea millefolium (yarrow),
Galium asparine (cleavers), Deschampsia caespitosa (tufted hairgrass),
and Hordeum brachyantherum (meadow barley) (Gisler and Gisler 2005).
In British Columbia, Sidalcea hendersonii primarily occurs in tidal
marshes as well as salt-water influenced ditches and man-made channels.
Associated species in natural habitats include Rumex spp. (sorrel),
Carex lyngbyei (Lyngbye's sedge), Aster subspicatus (Douglas' aster),
Lycopus europaeus (gypsywort), Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife),
Caltha palustris (marsh marigold), Cardamine pratensis (cuckoo flower),
Juncus balticus, Triglochin maritime (seaside arrowgrass), Typha
latifolia (broadleaf cattail), Iris pseudacorus (yellow flag),
Argentina egedii, Festuca rubra (red fescue), and Phalaris arundinacea
(reed canary grass) (J. Penny, pers. comm. 2005a).
In Alaska, Sidalcea hendersonii was found in the transitional
habitat areas of beach meadow/forest habitats. The beach meadow was
dominated by Geranium erianthum (geranium), Lathyrus palustris (beach
pea), and Lupinus nootkatensis (Nootka lupine). The adjacent forest
edge was dominated by Alnus viridis spp. sinuate (Sitka alder), Picea
sitchensis (Sitka spruce), Rubus spectabilis (salmonberry), and
Heracleum lanatum (cow parsnip) (Stensvold 2005).
Population Status
Sidalcea hendersonii occurs in up to 67 locations rangewide (NPSO
2003; WNHP 2005; J. Penny, pers. comm. 2005; Stensvold 2005). Records
in our files indicate that there are at least 5,000 to 10,000 plants in
Washington, approximately 1,200 to 1,400 plants in Oregon, and 3 plants
in Alaska. At least 30 populations with an unknown number of
individuals are believed to exist in British Columbia (J. Penny, pers.
comm. 2005a). Precise counts of S. hendersonii are difficult to obtain
due to observer subjectivity and the use of incomparable metrics to
quantify population numbers (WNHP 2005). For example, during surveys
conducted by the NPSO and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Oregon
(Appendix 1 in NPSO 2003), the terms ``stems'' and ``individuals'' were
used interchangeably. In Washington, individual plants were defined as
having either individual or multiple stems (WNHP 2005).
Sidalcea hendersonii is currently considered globally rare,
uncommon or threatened, but not immediately imperiled (G3) and is
considered critically imperiled (S1) in Oregon by the NatureServe and
Natural Heritage Network (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center
(ONHIC) 2004). The ONHIC (2004) ranks S. hendersonii with the group of
taxa that are threatened with extinction or thought to be extinct
throughout their range (List 1). Washington recently recommended S.
hendersonii as vulnerable (S3), and it will continue to be maintained
on the State's Watch List (WNHP 2005).
In British Columbia, Sidalcea hendersonii is listed as ``blue'' or
vulnerable (NatureServe 2005). Taxa on Canada's ``blue list'' are
considered at risk, but not extinct, endangered, or threatened. Due to
rarity in Alaska, S. hendersonii is ranked as critically imperiled (S1)
(Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) 2005).
The following is a summary of the current information on Sidalcea
hendersonii's population status.
Oregon
According to the petition and our files, at least ten Oregon sites
for Sidalcea hendersonii were identified from the 1880s to 1950, and
the species has disappeared from nine of these sites since the 1950s.
In 2003, a survey organized by the NPSO occurred in June, July, and
August. As stated in the petition, at least ``23 trained botanists''
searched for the plant at historical locations and in other likely
coastal habitat in Clatsop, Tillamook, Lane and
[[Page 8254]]
Douglas Counties. As described in the petition, S. hendersonii was
found at a single, known location in Lane County with 900 to 1,100
individuals. Although the petitioner provided information on survey
results, survey methodology was not submitted. Regarding the site where
the plant was found in Lane County, the petition does state that this
area is the only site where monitoring of the species regularly takes
place. According to the petition, this scattered population is divided
into five ``aggregations,'' with only two aggregations (Cox Island and
nearby Wilbur Island) considered viable (NPSO 2003).
Based on information from the petition and our files, we now
believe there are four populations of Sidalcea hendersonii in Oregon.
According to the maps provided in the petition, the Siuslaw River
estuary population appears to be two populations. One large population
exists in the Siuslaw River estuary on Cox Island and nearby Wilbur
Island. Cox Island is located on TNC property and supports a population
of 545 stems NPSO 2003). The peninsula northeast of Cox Island is under
unknown ownership and supports scattered individuals (see TNC Report,
Summer 2003, Appendix 1 in NPSO 2003). Wilbur Island is private
property adjacent to Cox Island, and supports an estimated 300 to 500
stems (see TNC Report, July 9, 2003, Appendix 1 in NPSO 2003).
A second small population is found in the North Fork Siuslaw River,
and is comprised of the ``North Fork'' site and Bull Island. The
``North Fork'' site is located on private property and supports 13
individuals (see NPSO Report, July 3, 2003, Appendix 1 in NPSO 2003).
The Bull Island site is located on Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife property and contains 31 stems (NPSO 2003). The confluence of
the North Fork Siuslaw River with the Siuslaw River estuary is
downriver from both populations and the two populations are at least
one mile apart.
Since the petition was submitted, two introductions of Sidalcea
hendersonii were made on sites with suitable habitat in Oregon; at
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge (131 plants) in Lincoln County and
at Blacks and Goose Islands, Umpqua River estuary (154 plants) in
Douglas County (M. Gisler, pers. comm. 2005). It is unknown if either
of these locations were historical sites.
As included in the petition, the NPSO (2003) speculated that
Sidalcea hendersonii declined in Oregon due to a number of factors,
including conversion of wetlands for agricultural purposes, livestock
grazing, weed invasions, urban and rural development, highway and
bridge construction, off-road vehicle use, and recreational activities.
Washington
In Washington, 47 current and historical sites of Sidalcea
hendersonii have been documented (WNHP 2005), twenty-seven of which
were revisited from 2002 to 2005 through incidental surveys, or during
a status review conducted by the Washington Natural Heritage Program in
2004 to 2005 and documented in the 2005 Status Report (WNHP 2005).
These surveys described 23 extant populations with a total of 18,000 to
20,000 stems. Distribution was concentrated along the coastal areas of
Grays Harbor and Pacific County, with scattered populations in Clallam,
Island, Snohomish, and San Juan Counties (WNHP 2005). If populations
found since 1980 (but not revisited in 2002 to 2005) are included,
Washington may support as many as 32 populations and 5,000 to 10,000
plants (WNHP 2005). The Status Report stated that any of the
populations may be much larger than the area surveyed and that ``there
is little evidence of population decline or loss, and the habitat
appears currently stable and secure, despite the large proportion of
populations on private land.''
British Columbia and Alaska
In British Columbia, the most recent estimate of Sidalcea
hendersonii populations is that there are 21 populations (69 percent)
located along the coast of the lower mainland (greater Vancouver) and 7
populations (24 percent) are found on Vancouver Island. There are two
locations on the Gulf Islands (North Pender Island and Briola Island)
and one on Trial Island, off of Oak Bay, Victoria (J. Penny, pers.
comm. 2005a). Inventory is incomplete so there is a likelihood of
finding more locations (J. Penny, pers. comm. 2005a).
In Alaska in 2003, two Sidalcea hendersonii were discovered at one
location on the Chilkat Peninsula, Tongass National Forest. This was
the first record of a plant within the family Malvaceae for the State.
Three S. hendersonii were found at the same location in 2005 (Stensvold
2005).
Threats Analysis
Pursuant to section (4) of the Act, we may list a species,
subspecies, or vertebrate taxa distinct population segment (DPS) on the
basis of any of the following five factors: (A) Present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated
whether the information related to Sidalcea hendersonii presented in
the petition, or in our files, suggests that the petitioned action may
be warranted. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered,
either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be
threatened or endangered. Our evaluation of these threats, based on
information provided in the petition and available in our files, is
presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition states that the historical range of Sidalcea
hendersonii extended from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to Umpqua
River estuary, Oregon, and based on the available scientific evidence,
approximately 40 sites currently exist for the species. The petitioner
states that, based on the decrease in S. hendersonii's range in Oregon
alone, the species is in clear danger of extinction within a
significant portion of its range. The petition also states that, based
on the plight and lack of protection of S. hendersonii, the species is
in danger of extinction throughout its range.
There is little information regarding the historical population
size or viability for Sidalcea hendersonii prior to the 1980s,
particularly for Oregon. Records prior to 2003 may not accurately
reflect the species' historical distribution because they were not
collected in a systematic, comprehensive manner with the goal of
determining species distribution and abundance. The petition does not
provide comprehensive information on the current range of S.
hendersonii within estuarine ecosystems.
It appears that in nine of the ten known historical locations in
Oregon the species is no longer present. A single population of
Sidalcea hendersonii as identified in the petition has recently been
recognized as two extant populations at the Siuslaw River estuary
location. In 2005, a population of S. hendersonii was introduced in
Lincoln County and another was introduced in Douglas County. The four
populations are located on protected lands, private land, or on
relatively inaccessible islands, and do not appear to be at risk from
threats such as wetlands conversion, weed invasions, development, or
recreational activities. The locations where S. hendersonii
[[Page 8255]]
populations are no longer found were located on the north coast of
Oregon, and constitute a relatively minor geographic area in relation
to the species' range. In view of the fact that the net loss of 6
locations in Oregon represents only 9 percent of the 67 existing
locations rangewide, we do not consider the loss of the Oregon
populations to be a significant loss to the rangewide existence of S.
hendersonii. There are no major geographic areas where S. hendersonii
was once viable but no longer is viable.
Although the petition states that Sidalcea hendersonii evolved in
Oregon, no published or peer-reviewed articles were provided in support
of the species' evolutionary origin. The petitioner states that S.
hendersonii is the only member of its genus that has adapted to an
environment between salt and fresh water, thereby limiting its
distribution to estuaries from central Oregon to southwestern British
Columbia. The petition claims S. hendersonii has been subject to
population losses and declines due to various land management practices
such as conversion of wetlands for agricultural purposes, livestock
grazing, weed invasions, urban and rural development, highway and
bridge construction, off-road vehicle use, and recreational activities.
Based on these, and other threats, the petitioner claims that S.
hendersonii is in danger of extinction throughout its entire range, and
provides the following information to substantiate this claim.
The petitioner cites wetland conversion for agriculture and grazing
purposes as a threat to Sidalcea hendersonii. Wetland conversion was
reported as a factor in the extirpation of S. hendersonii at five of
the ten sites investigated by the NPSO (Table 1 in NPSO 2003) in
Oregon. Surveyors noted channelization and diking at three sites in
Clatsop County. Grazing was cited as a threat at one site in Lane
County and one site in Douglas County. Forestry practices and grazing
in the Umpqua River estuary, Oregon, have impacted wetland habitat
(Miller 2003). Henderson (1891) described hundreds of acres of
estuarine habitat that have since been converted to pasture in
Tillamook County. Although the petition provided a list of sites where
anthropogenic threats to habitat exist, the petition did not provide
information on wetland conversion for portions of the S. hendersonii's
range where S. hendersonii is known to exist or to have existed.
The information in the petition suggests that conversion of
wetlands for agricultural and grazing purposes has been, in part,
responsible for the reduction of high salt marsh habitat in Oregon. The
petitioner provides general statements regarding wetland loss, but does
not cite specific examples of losses in specific areas where the
Sidalcea hendersonii has been found.
In Washington during the 2004-2005 survey, two marsh areas were
noted as being actively grazed and no longer providing habitat to
Sidalcea hendersonii due to diking and associated changes in hydrology.
However, the grazing had been on-going for 100 years and would not
likely be responsible for the recent declines in the population (WNHP
2005). No information was available in the petition or in our files on
wetland loss for current or historical sites in British Columbia. No
wetland loss has occurred where S. hendersonii was recently discovered
in Alaska. However, the loss of high salt marsh habitat is a factor
that likely contributed to population declines in Oregon and some
individual populations rangewide (Adamus et al. 2005; WNHP 2005).
Invasive Plants
The petition claims weed invasions pose a threat to Sidalcea
hendersonii throughout its range. In Oregon, invasive weeds were
reported as threats at three of the ten sites surveyed for Sidalcea
hendersonii (NPSO 2003). The petitioner claims that invasive weedy
competitors such as Phalaris arundinacea, Cytisus scoparius (scotch
broom), Lythrum salicaria, Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue),
Erechtites minima (coastal burnweed), and Spartina patens (saltmeadow
cordgrass) invade the Sidalcea hendersonii habitat. Spartina patens has
become established at Cox Island and is the target of TNC control
efforts (Pickering 2000). The petition does not provide specific
information on the threat of invasive weeds in other portions of
Sidalcea hendersonii's range.
The petitioner provides information about general weed invasions in
Sidalcea hendersonii habitat, and several sites where the presence of
weeds may be a threat in Oregon. However, the petitioner does not
provide substantial information that documents impacts by invasive
species outside of Oregon.
On Cox Island, although there is some overlap in habitat of
Spartina patens and Sidalcea hendersonii, Pickering (pers. comm. 2005)
states that Phalaris arundinacea is more of a threat than Spartina
patens. In Washington, invasive species were present at low levels
within 11 populations of Sidalcea hendersonii (WNHP 2005). Of the
greatest concern were Lythrum salicaria, Erechtites minima, Iris
pseudoacorus, and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle). Lythrum salicaria
was the only invasive species that posed a major threat to Sidalcea
hendersonii at one site, where it was also being actively controlled.
All other invasives were considered a low threat to the Sidalcea
hendersonii's viability (WNHP 2005), including Spartina patens which
occurs much lower in the tidal zone and not in the high marsh where
Sidalcea hendersonii occurs.
In British Columbia, the role of the introduced Lythrum salicaria
in competition with Sidalcea hendersonii is unknown, although in one
location L. salicaria seems to grow in wetter areas than those with S.
hendersonii (J. Penny, pers. comm. 2005b).
It is likely that invasive weeds pose a significant threat to some
individual populations and have contributed, in part, to the loss of
populations. However, the petition does not provide substantial
information on the magnitude and the extent of habitat impacts by
invasive weeds such that we might conclude that they threaten the
continued existence of Sidalcea hendersonii throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Urban and Rural Development
The petition identifies habitat loss from urban and rural
development as a negative impact to Sidalcea hendersonii. The
construction of the Columbia River jetty and Winchester Bay boat basin,
resorts, industrial development and airport construction were examples
cited in the petition. The infrastructure that accompanies development
(i.e., roads, highways, bridges) is also considered a threat. In the
2003 NPSO survey, five of the ten sites were found to have some form of
development associated with them. Although the petition provides a list
of sites where anthropogenic threats to habitat exist, it does not
provide specific information on the threat of urban and rural
development throughout S. hendersonii's range.
Recreational Activities
The petitioner claims that off-road vehicle use is a threat to
Sidalcea hendersonii, specifically at Bob Straub State Park (Nestucca
River). According to the petition, the last sighting of S. hendersonii
in Bob Straub State Park was in 1987, when 45 stems were found,
although the exact location is unknown. One stem was found at nearby
Whalen Island in 2000. The petitioner also states that the potential
park expansion and
[[Page 8256]]
prospective golf course at Sand Lake are a threat to S. hendersonii.
While recreational activities could be an issue in parks where
heavy recreational pressure or lack of enforcement lead to trampling of
habitat by users where Sidalcea hendersonii is found, the petition does
not provide information that links the actual loss of S. hendersonii
habitat to off-road vehicle use locally.
Summary of Habitat Threats
While a variety of anthropogenic activities that affect wetlands
(e.g., agriculture, grazing, coastal development) are occurring across
the range of Sidalcea hendersonii, the petition does not provide
substantial information that these activities, either singly or in
combination, are destroying or modifying S. hendersonii habitat over
all or a significant portion of the species' range. Also, with limited
exceptions, the petition fails to provide scientific documentation to
demonstrate that the areas where habitat loss has occurred are the same
areas where S. hendersonii populations have been documented.
Based on the preceding discussion, we do not believe that
substantial information is available indicating that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range may, either singularly or in combination with other factors, rise
to the level of a major threat to the continued existence of the
species throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
No information was presented in the petition, nor is any in our
files, to suggest that Sidalcea hendersonii has been overutilized for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition states that weevil predation poses a threat to
Sidalcea hendersonii populations by impacting seedling recruitment into
a population through the reduction or elimination of perfect flowers.
The petition cites the following information to support these claims.
Two species of curculionid beetles (weevils), Macrorhoptus sidalcea
Sleeper and Anthonomus melancholicus Dietz, are known to parasitize the
flowers of Sidalcea hendersonii in British Columbia. In populations
where female plants were abundant, weevil larvae destroyed
significantly more seeds from hermaphrodite plants, substantially
reducing seed production by perfect flowers overall (Marshall and
Ganders 2001). In 2003, weevils were collected from S. hendersonii on
Cox Island, Siuslaw River estuary, Oregon (R. Love, pers. comm. 2004),
although the significance of weevils to reproduction in this population
is unknown. The petition does not provide specific information on the
threat of weevil predation in other portions of the S. hendersonii's
range. The information presented indicates that this potential threat
has been evaluated in British Columbia (although no details were
provided), and that further research is needed to determine actual
impacts to S. hendersonii rangewide. In Washington, weevils were found
in 1 out of 14 populations searched (WNHP 2005).
Since weevils co-occur with other members of Sidalcea, their
occurrence in habitats with Sidalcea hendersonii is not surprising. The
petition does not present documentation to indicate that weevil predation
is a significant threat to the continued existence of S. hendersonii.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that State and Federal agencies have failed to
conduct monitoring for Sidalcea hendersonii in most of its range and
have failed to protect it from numerous direct and indirect impacts
associated with conversion of wetlands for agricultural purposes,
livestock grazing, and development (see Factor A above). The petition
further states that mechanisms to regulate and control these various
activities have failed to prevent harm to S. hendersonii habitat in a
significant portion of its range. The petitioner states that in Oregon,
one population is protected and actively managed on Cox Island through
invasive species management by TNC. The petition also states that S.
hendersonii has no known legal protection or conservation status in
Washington since the majority of sites are on private land, and that in
British Columbia only one population out of the 27 known sites is
protected (NPSO 2003).
While many Sidalcea hendersonii sites are not protected, several
sites are managed in a manner beneficial to the species. As stated in
the petition, Cox Island receives active weed management control and
protection under TNC (Pickering 2000). Sidalcea hendersonii was
recently introduced to the Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service property in Oregon to help stabilize and
conserve the species (Gisler 2005). In Washington, the site that occurs
on National Park Service land is managed as a natural area (L. Smith,
pers. comm. 2005). Two populations on Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) property are found within Natural Area Preserves. At
John's River and Smith Creek on Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) land, conservation measures are in place for the
estuarine ecosystems where S. hendersonii is found. At John's River,
estuary restoration is creating an additional 200 acres (81 hectares)
of tidally influenced high salt marsh with the breaching of the dike on
the East side (J. Gerchak, pers. comm. 2005).
In British Columbia, Sidalcea hendersonii occurs in protected areas
at Medicine Beach on Pender Islands, Trial Island Ecological Reserve,
and in a fen (marshland) sanctuary in greater Vancouver. Most locations
are likely on private land with unknown status (J. Penny, pers. comm.
2005). In Alaska, S. hendersonii is protected on Tongass National
Forest land under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (M.
Stensvold, pers. comm. 2005).
While many areas where Sidalcea hendersonii occurs are not
protected, a number of sites are managed in a manner consistent with
conservation of the species. Therefore, we conclude that the petition
does not present substantial information to indicate that S.
hendersonii may be threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms across all or a significant portion of its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petition mentions several other factors, not discussed above,
that negatively impact Sidalcea hendersonii populations. Some of these
are found within the text of the petition, others within the survey
data provided as attachments. These factors include changes to the
estuarine ecosystem, the species' breeding system, succession,
browsing, and pollution.
Changes to the Estuarine Habitat
The petition states that estuarine habitats are susceptible to
flooding, siltation, storm surges, battering by driftwood, and long-
term changes in sea level. The petitioner cites the threat of these
events within estuarine habitat to Sidalcea hendersonii, and provides
the following information to support this claim. Dr. R. Frenkel from
Oregon State University (NPSO 2003) states that ``complicating the
distribution of S.
[[Page 8257]]
hendersonii is the accumulation of storm driven debris from massive
debris deposition. To survive, the plant population in this zone must
migrate bayward. For plants like S. hendersonii, with a vulnerable
reproductive strategy, life is particularly hazardous.'' Glenn Miller
from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (NPSO 2003) has stated that
S. hendersonii has disappeared in the Umpqua River estuary partly due
to ``silt events during floods.'' Siltation events were cited as a
threat at two of the ten sites surveyed by NPSO in Oregon (2003).
However, aside from these two citations, the petition does not provide
specific information on the threat of natural estuarine processes or
sea-level changes in other portions of the S. hendersonii's range. In
Washington, no direct damage from storm or flooding events was apparent
at survey sites (WNHP 2005).
Breeding System
Sidalcea hendersonii is a gynodioecious species, which means that
the plants have either perfect flowers (male and female) or pistillate
(female) flowers. The petition claims that under this breeding system,
three scenarios are likely to occur including (1) If numbers of female-
only plants become low, cross pollination would become rare and
inbreeding depression would occur; (2) if numbers of plants (especially
female) become low, recruitment would be negatively impacted as female
plants produce the most seeds, and (3) if perfect-flowered plants
become scarce, this would destroy the pollen source and prevent sexual
reproduction. The only evidence that the petition provided to support
these claims was the presence of two small populations in the Siuslaw
River estuary comprising 98 percent and 100 percent females. One of
these populations did not produce any seeds in 2003 (NPSO 2003). The
petition does not provide specific information on the threat of low
populations of either female or perfect flowers in other portions of
the S. hendersonii's range.
Poor recruitment of individuals is likely a threat locally where
populations are low; however, no information exists to suggest this is
a current threat to the species rangewide, or in a significant portion
of the range. While the claims regarding inbreeding depression and
scarcity of perfect-flowered plants are conceivable, no information
exists to suggest this is a current threat to the species rangewide or
in a significant portion of the range.
Other Threats
Succession, grazing and browsing by deer, road maintenance, and
pollution are threats listed either in the petition and its appendices.
While discussion of these topics was not provided in the petition, road
maintenance was cited as a particular threat to populations adjacent to
roads and highways in Washington (see survey data in WNHP 2005). In
Alaska, succession was a threat to the single population located near
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) in the upper beach meadow, which was
described as undergoing relatively rapid changes toward forested
successional stage (Stensvold 2005).
Based on the foregoing discussion, we do not believe that the
petition has presented substantial scientific information relating the
changes in geographic range and abundance of the species to the actual
threats to the survival of the species. We also do not believe that the
petition indicates that natural or manmade factors threaten the
continued existence of Sidalcea hendersonii throughout all or a
significant portion of the species' range. Consequently, we conclude
that the petitioner does not present substantial information indicating
that a reduction in the species' numbers or range warrants a status
review.
Additional Information Provided by Petitioner
The additional information we received on January 17, 2006, from
the petitioner in support of the petitioned action claims that 90
percent of the Sidalcea hendersonii populations in Oregon and 54
percent of the populations in Washington have been lost, and provides
statements about perceived threats to 23 extant populations in
Washington. Although as many as nine populations have disappeared in
Oregon, two extant and two introduced populations are located in the
state, for a net loss of six locations. In Washington there is a total
of 47 historic and current sites, of which 27 sites were surveyed
between 2002 and 2005, and based on these surveys 23 populations were
found. As many as 9 of the remaining 20 unsurveyed sites may have
existing populations. Therefore, we do not agree that 54 percent of the
populations in Washington have been lost. Although the 2002-2005
surveys were not comprehensive, the species appears to be ``abundant in
numerous well-distributed locations within Washington'' (WNHP 2006).
After reviewing the NPSO's list of specific threats to S. hendersonii,
the WNHP (2006) concluded that the ``overall vigor of the populations
remains high, and the existing threats are not pushing the species into
rapid decline in Washington.'' Based on the preceding discussion, we do
not believe that petitioner's new information presents substantial
scientific information indicating that natural or manmade factors
threaten the species' continued existence.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition,
and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent
literature and information available in our files. Based on the current
status of the species, our threats analysis, and a lack of information
suggesting that the species is threatened in a significant portion of
its range, we find the petition does not present substantial
information indicating that listing of Sidalcea hendersonii may be
warranted at this time. While we will not be initiating a status review
in response to the petition, we will continue to work with others to
monitor the species' status and trends and we encourage interested
parties to continue to provide us with information that will assist
with the conservation of the species. If you wish to provide
information regarding S. hendersonii, you may submit your information
or materials to the Field Supervisor, Portland Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section above).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Liz Kelly, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Newport Field Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 6, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-2206 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060216/15c64cf7/attachment.html>
More information about the native-plants
mailing list