62FR64306 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Callippe Silverspot Butterfly and the Behren's Silverspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Alameda Whipsnake, Part 2/2
robop...@us.govnews.org
Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/nara/fed-register/1997/dec/05/62FR64306/part2
Posting-number: Volume 62, Issue 234, Page 64306, Part 1
[[Page 64315]]
especially critical for the long term survival of populations of these
butterflies (S. Mattoon, in litt., August 4, 1989, and November 22,
1992). Non-native plants may also replace native vegetation in habitat
for the Alameda whipsnake, potentially degrading the habitat and
reducing the prey base. Radiotelemetry data indicate that Alameda
whipsnakes tend to avoid dense stands of eucalyptus (Swaim 1994).
Periodic fires can be an important factor in maintaining the
grassland and coastal prairie habitat of the callippe silverspot
butterfly and the Behren's silverspot butterfly. Without fire,
succession will eliminate the foodplants of the larvae of the two
butterflies (Orsak 1980, Hammond and McCorkle 1984). Periodic cool,
fast-moving fires appear important for the maintenance of the habitat
of these two species. Dead grass and other vegetation from previous
years may not decay quickly enough and may gradually accumulate to form
a thick layer of thatch that smothers violets. The larvae of the
silverspot butterflies may survive fires that move rapidly through
grassland habitats, whereas hotter, slow-moving brush and woodland
fires may kill them (Orsak 1980, Hammond and McCorkle 1984). In
addition, under windy conditions, fast-moving grassland fires burn in
patches that leave ``islands'' of unburned habitat where any
butterflies present are not harmed.
The Alameda whipsnake is threatened directly and indirectly by the
effects of fire suppression. Fire suppression exacerbates the effects
of wildfires through the buildup of fuel (underbrush and woody debris),
creating conditions for slow-moving, hot fires as described above. The
highest intensity fires occur in the summer and early fall when
accumulated fuel is abundant and dry. During this period, hatchling and
adult Alameda whipsnakes are aboveground (Swaim 1994), and populations
are likely to sustain the heaviest losses from fires. The development
of a closed scrub canopy also results in a buildup of flammable fuels
over time (Parker 1987, Rundel 1987). Fire suppression has led to the
encroachment of nonindigenous and ornamental trees into grassland
habitats, further increasing flammable fuel loads in and around Alameda
whipsnake habitat.
Fire suppression can alter the structure of snake habitat by
allowing plants to establish a closed canopy (Parker 1987) that will
tend to create relatively cool conditions. Alameda whipsnakes have a
higher mean active body temperature (33.4 degrees centigrade) and a
higher degree of body temperature stability (stenothermy) than has been
documented in any other species of snake under natural conditions
(Swaim 1994). Alameda whipsnakes apparently can maintain this high,
stable body temperature by using open and partially open and/or low
growing shrub communities that provide cover from predators while
providing a mosaic of sunny and shady areas between which Alameda
whipsnakes can move to regulate their body temperatures (Swaim 1994).
Tall, shaded stands of vegetation, such as poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), or other vegetation
may not provide the optimum temperature gradient for Alameda
whipsnakes. Survey data show that Alameda whipsnakes are less likely to
be found where these plant species create a closed canopy (Swaim 1994).
In addition, many of the native coastal scrub and chaparral plant
species require periodic fires to stimulate new sprouting, seedling
recruitment, and seed dispersal (Parker 1987; Keeley 1987, 1992). The
natural fire frequency necessary to provide this stimulus in this
habitat type is debated by scientists but ranges from 10 to 30 years
(Keeley and Keeley 1987, Rundel 1987). Therefore, depending on the rate
of fuel accumulation, prescribed burns can be conducted in areas where
fires have been suppressed with a frequency of 10 to 30 years (J.
Ferreira, CDPR, pers. comm. 1996).
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP)
has primary authority for wildfire management in the State of
California. Where joint jurisdiction exists, such as with regional or
State park lands, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is often
developed. Through these MOUs, consideration of cultural, esthetic, and
natural resources, can be addressed during planning and implementation
of wildfire management. However, CDFFP has the final decision on
wildfire management. The policy of the CDFFP for unprescribed fires,
such as those resulting from lightning strikes, is to put them out
immediately (B. Harrington, CDFFP, pers. comm. 1996). Similarly, while
CDFFP is engaging in some prescribed burn programs, they remain
hesitant to fully endorse prescribed burning, especially where there is
an urban-parkland interface (CDFFP 1989; J. Di Donato, EBRPD, pers.
comm. 1996).
The CDPR has management responsibilities for Mount Diablo State
Park, where a considerable portion of the suitable whipsnake habitat
occurs. Residential development has occurred around most of the
perimeter of the Park (J. Ferreira, pers. comm. 1996). The urban-
parkland interface has necessitated that CDPR, with CDFFP, develop and
implement a wildfire management plan and program. According to a MOU
with CDPR, the CDFFP is the designated lead agency on fire management
in Mount Diablo State Park and, therefore, has the final decision on
how to manage each fire on CDPR lands (CDPR and CDFFP 1995). The CDPR
drafted the Mount Diablo Wildfire Management Plan for the Park in 1987.
This plan originally sought to reduce the high levels of livestock
grazing on parklands to an ``interpretive level'' to manage more
successfully for wildlife values (J. Ferreira, pers. comm. 1996). Local
ranchers who grazed cattle on or adjacent to parklands were opposed to
this plan and gained the support of local fire agencies to continue
grazing because grazing was seen as a form of fire management (J.
Ferreira, pers. comm. 1996).
In 1995, grazing pressure was significantly reduced and CDPR took a
new approach in fire management planning by revising the Mount Diablo
Wildfire Management Plan. The revised plan was developed in
coordination with CDFFP and outlines presuppression, suppression, and
fire management programs (CDPR and CDFFP 1995). These programs identify
areas for prescribed burns, fire breaks to be maintained, and unique
cultural resources, rare and endangered plants, and structures. Rare
and endangered animal species (including the Alameda whipsnake) are not
specifically identified in the plan. The ultimate decision on ``initial
attack'' of any given fire occurrence still lies with CDFFP, which
generally prefers to suppress fires on Mount Diablo. In addition, CDFFP
has been concerned about conducting prescribed burns due to the
proximity of the urban-parkland interface (J. Ferreira, pers. comm.,
1996).
Encroaching urban development has necessitated the implementation
of rigorous fire suppression practices in and around suitable habitat
areas for the Alameda whipsnake by land management agencies to protect
people and property. The EBRPD guidelines state that opportunities for
prescribed burning on their lands is limited because of the urban-
parkland interface and the risk of the fire escaping control lines
(EBRPD 1992). Another obstacle the regional climatic conditions
required to conduct prescribed burning safely. Although the EBRPD has
developed prescribed burning plans and strategies to manage their
lands, implementation of these plans has been
[[Page 64316]]
hindered by the close proximity of adjacent residential and commercial
development areas (J. Di Donato, pers. comm., 1996). Although the EBRPD
is in the process of updating their prescribed burn program in response
to the 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm, the public does not fully endorse
prescribed burning (EBRPD 1995).
The breeding of closely related individuals can cause genetic
problems in small populations, particularly the expression of
deleterious genes (known as inbreeding depression). Both the callippe
silverspot butterfly and the Behren's silverspot butterfly exist only
as very small, isolated populations (S. Mattoon, in litt., August 4,
1989, and November 22, 1992). Alameda whipsnakes tend to be relatively
rare even in suitable habitat as is indicated by trapping studies that
show low capture rates and relatively high recapture rates (about 3
captures, 1 recapture per 1,000 trap days) (Swaim 1994). Individuals
and populations possessing deleterious genetic material are less able
to adapt to changes in environmental conditions, even relatively minor
changes. Further, small populations are vulnerable to the effects of
genetic drift (the loss of genetic variability). This phenomenon also
reduces the ability of individuals and populations to successfully
respond to environmental stresses. Overall, these factors influence the
survivability of smaller, genetically isolated populations of each of
the three species listed herein.
The callippe silverspot butterfly, Behren's silverspot butterfly,
and the Alameda whipsnake are all vulnerable to the effects of habitat
fragmentation. Subdivision of natural land into smaller blocks of
suitable habitat is often the result of human activities such as urban
development, road construction, fire management policies, and
inappropriate livestock grazing practices. Further reduction of
population size and genetic interchange among populations through
isolation, genetic drift, and inbreeding depression, may result in less
vigorous and adaptable populations of these three species listed
herein. Small, isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction from
random fluctuations in population size or variations in population
characteristics (e.g., sex ratios) caused by annual weather patterns,
food availability, and other factors. Because most of the populations
of these species are isolated from other conspecific populations,
natural recolonization from other populations is unlikely or
impossible, and the vulnerability of each population to natural events
is high.
An additional threat to the San Bruno Mountain population of the
callippe silverspot butterfly is the high level of dust from quarry
operations in the vicinity. Adult and early stages of the taxon may be
prone to injury and mortality from dust because their respiratory
apparatus (spiracles) are easily clogged.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information regarding past, present, and future threats
faced by these species in determining this final rule. Based on this
evaluation, the preferred action is to list the callippe silverspot
butterfly and Behren's silverspot butterfly as endangered species, and
the Alameda whipsnake as a threatened species. The current range
restrictions of these species make them increasingly vulnerable to
threats described above under factors A through E.
Urban development threatens both the callippe silverspot butterfly
and Behren's silverspot butterfly. One of the two known extant colonies
of the callippe silverspot butterfly is imminently imperiled, and both
colonies are threatened by overcollection. The single known population
of Behren's silverspot butterfly is similarly threatened. Available
habitat and population levels are depleted to the extent that these
butterflies are near the brink of extinction. Because the callippe
silverspot butterfly and Behren's silverspot butterfly are in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges,
these species fit the definition of endangered as defined by the Act.
All five remaining populations of the Alameda whipsnake are
threatened by a variety of factors. Each of these populations consist
of several to numerous subpopulations with varying degrees of
connectivity between them. In the western portion of the species'
range, the Tilden-Briones population is threatened by a high potential
for catastrophic wildfire and urban development. However, the remaining
habitat, regional parklands, and municipal watersheds in this area
overlap to the extent that a regional preserve may be possible. The
Oakland-Las Trampas population is threatened by a high potential for
catastrophic wildfire and the effects of habitat fragmentation and
urban development. The Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge population is the most
susceptible to extirpation. This population is scattered in
distribution and is, therefore, more vulnerable to the effects of
development and subsequent habitat fragmentation. In the eastern
portion of the species' range, the Mount Diablo-Black Hills population
is threatened by a high potential for catastrophic wildfire,
development and its associated impacts, and inappropriate grazing
practices. Because of the location of public lands and the potential
for improved fire and grazing management on parklands, this population
is a good candidate for recovery, if urbanization threats can be
controlled. The Sunol-Cedar Mountain population is threatened by
development and inappropriate grazing practices. Overall, the Oakland-
Las Trampas and Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge populations are the most
immediately imperiled with habitat fragmentation becoming prevalent
enough to compromise their long-term viability.
In the proposed rule (59 FR 5377), the Service proposed to list the
Alameda whipsnake as endangered based primarily on the threats of
urbanization and invasive alien vegetation. The Service has reevaluated
the available information, including information provided during the
public comment period, regarding threats to the species. Urbanization
and the negative effects of structural changes in both the native and
alien vegetative component of whipsnake habitat continue to threaten
the survival of the Alameda whipsnake. However, these threats are not
now of sufficient magnitude to create a danger of extinction throughout
all, or a significant portion, of the range of the species. The Service
now concludes that the failure to implement appropriate fire management
practices on public lands to sustain suitable Alameda whipsnake
habitat, coupled with the rate of loss of suitable habitat on private
lands, make it likely that the Alameda whipsnake will become in danger
of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range in
the foreseeable future. Because the Alameda whipsnake is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, this
species fits the definition of threatened as defined by the Act.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use
[[Page 64317]]
of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is not
determinable if information sufficient to perform required analyses of
the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of
the species are not sufficiently known to permit identification of an
area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Service to consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating
a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best
scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in
the extinction of the species. Service regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent
when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) The species is
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species.
The Callippe Silverspot and Behren's Silverspot Butterflies
As discussed under factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section above, an extensive international commercial
trade has been documented to exist for butterflies in general (Collins
and Morris 1985) and for threatened or endangered species of
butterflies in particular, which are accorded higher value because of
the formal recognition of their rarity (United States v. Richard J.
Skalski, Thomas W. Kral, and Marc L. Grinnell, Case No. CR932013,
1993). This trade includes several species of the genus Speyeria,
including the callippe silverspot butterfly which was illegally
collected after the species was proposed for listing under the Act, the
Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrtleae), and the
Oregon silverspot butterfly (S. zerene hippolyta), the last two of
which are listed federally subspecies that are similar in appearance to
the Behren's silverspot butterfly (S. zerene behrensii) included in
this rule (Howe 1975, Hammond 1980, McCorkle and Hammond 1988). Illegal
collecting has been observed at one of the two remaining sites for the
callippe silverspot butterfly (S. Stern, in litt., 1994).
The Service is also aware of reports that Behren's silverspot
butterfly is actively sought by collectors. The fact that this species
is not yet a commodity in illegal trade is likely attributable to the
lack of specific knowledge of the location of its sole remaining
population. Trade in these specimens is not limited to the occasional
adult butterfly, but can include dozens of individuals and hundreds of
larvae (United States v. Richard J. Skalski, Thomas W. Kral, and Marc
L. Grinnell, Case No. CR932013, 1993). The effects that even limited
collecting can have on small populations are discussed in detail under
factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
above. Because of the increased value of listed species, the illicit
commercial trade in the callippe silverspot butterfly and Behren's
silverspot butterfly would be likely to increase upon listing. Although
the San Bruno Mountain locality is purportedly known to collectors (see
issue 3 under the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section
above), this is a large area (340 ha (850 ac)) and precise maps and
descriptions of critical habitat, such as those which would appear in
the Federal Register if critical habitat was designated, are not now
available to the general public. The specific localities of the two
other localities of the callippe or silverspot butterflies are not well
known, but they are near roads or trails and could be easily accessed
by the public if precise locality information is provided.
In addition, neither the callippe silverspot butterfly nor the
Behren's silverspot butterfly would receive any benefit from the
designation of critical habitat beyond that provided by listing.
Critical habitat only applies to activities on Federal lands and
activities on private lands involving Federal authorization or funding.
All known populations of these species occur on non-Federal land. The
only Federal land within the historical range of Behren's silverspot
butterfly is a small parcel at the U.S. Coast Guard lighthouse at Point
Arena. Although this installation is in close proximity to the only
known site for this species, no specific records document any
historical occurrence at this site. The habitat at this site, and
elsewhere within the historical range of the species, is presumed to be
currently unsuitable for the species. No activity involving a Federal
action currently occurs on the sole site where the species remains.
Even if a future Federal project were to occur in the area, it would
require consultation with the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act
before it could be implemented. Because this butterfly exists only as a
single, small population, any future activity involving a Federal
action that would adversely modify critical habitat, that is, would
appreciably diminish the value of the critical habitat for the survival
and recovery of the species, would also likely jeopardize the species'
continued existence.
Colonies of the callippe silverspot butterfly are known only to
exist at two sites, both of which are privately owned. The callippe
silverspot butterfly was considered during the formulation of the San
Bruno Mountain HCP under the provisions of a section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act. This HCP, in which the callippe silverspot butterfly was
designated as a species of concern, permanently protects approximately
92 percent of its habitat on San Bruno Mountain. The HCP also includes
management activities, funded by development projects, that benefit the
butterfly including annual monitoring of the colonies on the site (V.
Harris, in litt., 1996). Habitat for the other known population is
partially protected in a city park in Alameda County. No Federal
actions, authorizations, or licensing currently occurs on this site.
Although there are scattered Federal landholdings throughout the
historical range of the callippe silverspot butterfly, there are no
historical collections of this species from any Federal lands. Because
of the extensive urbanization within its historical range, no suitable
habitat remains for the species other than at the two sites at which it
is currently known to persist (Orsak 1980; Steiner 1990; S. Mattoon, in
litt., 1992). Federal agency involvement, therefore, is not likely to
occur on either of the two sites at which the callippe silverspot
butterfly persists. Even if a future Federal project were to occur at
either site, it would require consultation with the Service pursuant to
section 7 of the Act before it could be implemented. Because only two
small populations of this butterfly remain, any future activity
involving a Federal action that would adversely modify critical
habitat, that is, would appreciably diminish the value of the critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species, would also likely
jeopardize the species' continued existence.
Critical habitat designation in areas outside of the currently
occupied territory of the callippe silverspot butterfly also would
serve no purpose
[[Page 64318]]
because these areas are highly urbanized and essentially have no
practical value for the survival and recovery of the species. In
addition, activities within these areas are very unlikely to involve a
Federal action which would trigger section 7 consultation. Furthermore,
in the unlikely event that an activity involving a Federal action is
proposed in one of these areas, it is very unlikely that the Service
would determine that the activity would appreciably diminish the value
of the area for the survival and recovery of the species because these
areas essentially have no such value to the species currently. Critical
habitat designation in areas outside of the currently occupied
territory of the Behren's silverspot butterfly also would serve little
purpose because activities within these areas are very unlikely to
involve a Federal action which would trigger section 7 consultation.
The Service finds, therefore, that designation of critical habitat
for the callippe silverspot butterfly and the Behren's silverspot
butterfly is not prudent because doing so would make these butterflies
more vulnerable to incidents of collection further contributing to
their decline. Designation of critical habitat for the callippe
silverspot butterfly and the Behren's silverspot butterfly is also not
prudent because it would confer no benefit to the species beyond that
provided by listing.
Alameda Whipsnake
As discussed earlier, the historical range of the whipsnake has
been fragmented by urbanization into five populations, each of which is
effectively isolated from the others. The core of each of these five
populations is comprised of relatively large expanses of public, non-
Federal lands, which comprise about 80 percent of known whipsnake
habitat. Although these public lands are protected from development,
other threats to the whipsnake remain, including the negative effects
of fire suppression on the structure of whipsnake habitat, the indirect
effects of urban development (e.g., increased recreational use of the
public lands, increased predation by pets, etc.), and other factors
discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
above. The Service is not aware of any Federal lands within the range
of the Alameda whipsnake, and activities involving a Federal action are
not likely to occur on the public, non-Federal lands.
Private lands comprise the other 20 percent of known whipsnake
habitat. There is a remote possibility of Federal agency involvement on
these lands in the form of insurance provided by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for housing loans. Such actions
within whipsnake habitat, however, are likely to be rare. In addition,
urban development will only occur along the periphery of the core areas
of whipsnake populations. Because of the need for an active fire
management program in the form of prescribed burns to maintain the
necessary habitat structure for the whipsnake, areas slated for
development in this urban-wildland interface do not offer suitable
long-term habitat potential for the whipsnake and, therefore, cannot be
considered to be habitat essential to the conservation of the species
nor habitat requiring special management considerations. Even if
Federal involvement in the form of housing loans were to occur in these
areas, it would require consultation with the Service pursuant to
section 7 of the Act before it could be implemented. The potential for
the involvement of other Federal agencies within the historical range
of the Alameda whipsnake is discussed in the ``Available Conservation
Measures'' section below.
Critical habitat designation outside of the areas where the Alameda
whipsnake currently occurs also would serve no purpose because these
areas are not essential for the survival and recovery of the species.
The Service believes that sufficient occupied habitat remains which, if
managed for greater benefits for the Alameda whipsnake, would ensure
the survival and provide for the recovery of the species.
Any potential conservation benefit from designation of critical
habitat for the Alameda whipsnake is undermined by the risk of
overcollection. The demand for live reptiles as collectibles and exotic
pets has increased rapidly in recent years and the high level of demand
by reptile collectors often encourages smuggling of wild-caught
specimens (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). While the Alameda
whipsnake has not been particularly popular among reptile collectors in
the past, the act of listing increases the attractiveness and value of
listed entities to collectors, thereby potentially increasing the
threat of unauthorized collection (K. McCloud, pers. comm. 1994, 1996).
The identification of localities of the whipsnake through designation
of critical habitat would exacerbate the threat of overcollection
because many areas in which the whipsnake occurs are readily accessible
by road or public trail. The effects that even limited collecting can
have on small populations are discussed in detail under factor B in the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section above. Because of
the likelihood for an increase in the value of a species upon listing,
any current illicit commercial trade in the Alameda whipsnake would
likely increase with this listing.
Because of the expected rarity of Federal agency involvement and
the low conservation value of lands on which Federal involvement is
most likely to occur, the Service finds that critical habitat
designation is not prudent for the Alameda whipsnake due to lack of any
significant benefit beyond that conferred by listing. Moreover, the
publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the
Federal Register would make this snake more vulnerable to incidents of
collection further contributing to its decline. Any benefit which might
be derived from the designation of critical habitat for the Alameda
whipsnake is outweighed by the increased threat of collection.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires recovery actions be carried
out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies
and prohibitions against taking are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to insure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
As noted previously, HUD may insure housing loans in areas that
presently support the Alameda whipsnake. Such actions are likely to be
rare but these loans would be subject to review by the Service under
section 7 of the Act.
[[Page 64319]]
Other Federal agencies that possibly could be affected if these animals
are listed would include the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Transportation (Federal Highways Administration). Both agencies
cooperate in projects within the historical range of the Alameda
whipsnake. The projects, however, are typically confined to waterways
and highways both of which occur in low-lying areas that no longer
provide suitable habitat for the whipsnake. Such areas are surrounded
by intense urban development and are, in combination with the urban
areas, the primary landscape components that have already effectively
isolated the five core populations of the whipsnake. Involvement by the
Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Highway Administration in the
core areas that comprise the remaining habitat for the whipsnake is
highly unlikely since these areas are comprised primarily of steep
mountainous terrain where projects that impact regulated wetlands,
flood control projects, and highway construction projects rarely occur.
No populations of the callippe silverspot butterfly, Behren's
silverspot butterfly, or Alameda whipsnake are known to occur on
property owned by the Federal government.
One of the two known extant populations of the callippe silverspot
butterfly is protected by the San Bruno Mountain HCP (USFWS permit
number PRT 2-9818). In 1982, a Section 10(a) incidental take permit was
issued to the cities of Brisbane, Daly City, South San Francisco, and
the County of San Mateo, for the endangered mission blue butterfly, San
Bruno elfin butterfly, and San Francisco garter snake. The permit
allows for the loss of animals and habitat through urban development of
approximately 344 ha (850 ac) of San Bruno Mountain. The HCP
permanently protects about 1,114 ha (2,752 ac) of natural habitat at
this site. The conference report on the 1982 amendments to the Act
indicates that Congress intended HCPs to encompass both listed and
unlisted species, especially unlisted species that may later require
protection. Although the callippe silverspot butterfly was not included
as a ``covered'' species in the Section 10(a) permit, the HCP included
specific provisions for the butterfly in the event it did become listed
by the Service. These provisions protect 92 percent of the species'
habitat at the site through various mechanisms (such as landowner
obligations for land dedications, open space set-asides, mitigation
measures, and habitat enhancement), implement annual monitoring of its
population, and allow for adaptive management to conserve the species.
However, no specific provisions were included in the HCP to protect the
callippe silverspot butterfly from poachers.
The listing of the callippe silverspot butterfly, Behren's
silverspot butterfly, and the Alameda whipsnake will also bring
sections 5 and 6 of the Act into effect. Section 5 authorizes
acquisition of lands by the Secretary of the Interior (and Secretary of
Agriculture in certain cases) for the purposes of conserving endangered
and threatened species. Pursuant to section 6, the Service would be
able to grant funds to affected states for management actions aiding in
protection and recovery of these animals.
Listing the callippe silverspot butterfly and the Behren's
silverspot butterfly as endangered and the Alameda whipsnake as
threatened provides for the development of recovery plans for them.
Such plans will bring together State and Federal efforts for
conservation of the animals. The plans will establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate activities and cooperate with each other in
conservation efforts. The plans will set recovery priorities and
estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish them. They also
will describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve
conservation of the species.
Listing of the Alameda whipsnake will likely result in the
increased ability of public land agencies to promote management plans
that address the need to manage for Alameda whipsnakes, including, but
not limited to, increased ability to conduct prescribed burns, manage
predators, control feral pigs and other feral animals, regulate
recreational use, and develop educational programs for the benefit of
the Alameda whipsnake.
The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 for
endangered species and 17.31 for threatened species set forth a series
of prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife
and to threatened wildlife not covered by a special rule. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to take, import or export, transport
in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity,
or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that was illegally taken. Certain
exceptions can apply to agents of the Service and State conservation
agencies.
It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The
intent of this policy is increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species'
range.
With respect to the callippe silverspot butterfly or Behren's
silverspot butterfly, the Service believes that neither observing the
species (without capture) nor light to moderate grazing of its habitat
by livestock would likely result in a violation of section 9.
With respect to the callippe silverspot butterfly or Behren's
silverspot butterfly, the following actions likely would be considered
a violation of section 9:
(1) Capture or collection of adults or any other life history
stages;
(2) Collection, damage, or destruction of foodplants (Viola
species) or other nectar sources within the species range; and,
(3) Destruction of the species' occupied habitat by actions
including, but not limited to, road, street or highway construction;
subdivision construction; application of herbicides or other chemical
agents; brush removal; or off-road vehicle use.
With respect to the Alameda whipsnakes, the following actions
likely would be considered a violation of section 9:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of whipsnakes;
(2) Destruction or degradation of occupied whipsnake habitat by
actions including, but not limited to, road construction, road
widening, subdivision construction, brush removal, or off-road vehicle
use; and,
(3) Destruction or degradation of occupied whipsnake habitat by
livestock grazing if conducted following notification by the Service
that such grazing constitutes ``take'' of whipsnakes.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened animal species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are found in 50 CFR 17.22,
17.23, and 17.32. For endangered species, such permits are available
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, to alleviate economic hardship in certain circumstances, and/
or for incidental take in connection with otherwise
[[Page 64320]]
lawful activities. For threatened species there are also permits for
zoological exhibition, educational purposes or other purposes
consistent with the purposes of the Act. Further information regarding
regulations and requirements for permits may be obtained from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063, facsimile
503/231-6243).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection
requirements.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule are available
upon request from the Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are Mike Westphal, Sheila
Larsen and Diane Windham, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulations Promulgation
Accordingly, Part 17, Subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following in alphabetical
order under REPTILES to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
3. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following in alphabetical
order under INSECTS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Whipsnake, Alameda (=striped Masticophis U.S.A. (CA)........ NA................. T 628 NA NA
racer, Alameda). lateralis
euryxanthus.
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Behren's silverspot... Speyeria zerene U.S.A. (CA)........ NA................. E 628 NA NA
behrensii.
Butterfly, callippe silverspot... Speyeria callippe U.S.A. (CA)........ NA................. E 628 NA NA
callippe.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: November 18, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31836 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P