2004 Federal Register, 69 FR 64884; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64884-64889]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no04-28]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition to List Cymopterus deserticola (desert cymopterus) as
Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding for a petition to list Cymopterus deserticola (desert
cymopterus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After reviewing the available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the species as threatened or
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range is not
warranted at this time. We ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats
to the species. This information will help us monitor the status of
this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on November 9,
2004. Although no further action will result from this finding, we
request that you submit new information concerning the status of, or
threats to, this species, whenever it becomes available.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species
to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above) (telephone at
805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the List of Threatened and Endangered Species that contains
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the
date of the receipt of the petition. We may find that the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but
precluded by other pending proposals. Such 12-month findings are to be
published promptly in the Federal Register.
On April 15, 2002, we received a petition, dated March 29, 2002,
from the California Native Plant Society and the Center for Biological
Diversity, requesting us to list Cymopterus deserticola (desert
cymopterus) as an endangered species and designate critical habitat. On
June 12, 2002, we sent a letter to the petitioners explaining that we
would not be able to address their petition in the current fiscal year
because court orders and settlement agreements required nearly all of
our listing funding. On April 25, 2003, the California Native Plant
Society and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint
against the Service for failure to make the mandatory 90-day and 12-
month petition findings (California Native Plant Society and the Center
for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C-03-1881-
JCS). Settlement due dates were agreed to of February 1, 2004, for the
90-day finding, and, if the 90-day finding was found to be substantial,
November 1, 2004, for the 12-month finding. The Director signed the 90-
day finding on January 29, 2004. On February 10, 2004, we published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing our initial petition finding
that the petitioned action may be warranted (69 FR 6240) and initiated
a status review at that time. We have now completed our status review
of the best available scientific and commercial information on
Cymopterus deserticola, and have reached a determination regarding the
petitioned action.

Species Information

Cymopterus deserticola, an herbaceous perennial plant, is a member
of the carrot family (Apiaceae). Individual plants generally reach 6
inches (in) (15 centimeters (cm)) in height when in flower. Cymopterus
deserticola is unusual in having herbaceous above-ground leaves and
inflorescences (flowering parts of plant) that die back at the end of
the growing season, leaving only the perennial taproot to overwinter.
The plant may only produce the leaves and inflorescences in years when
favorable climatic conditions, including sufficient rainfall, are
present. In some years, individuals may produce leaves but not
inflorescences. In years when flowering does occur, the inflorescences
emerge in early spring. During unfavorable climatic conditions, such as
severe drought, the plant may persist solely as a dormant taproot; the
length of time the perennial taproot of C. deserticola can survive is
unknown.
Cymopterus deserticola grows on loose, sandy soils in Joshua tree
woodland, saltbush scrub, and Mojavean desert scrub communities in the
western Mojave Desert, at elevations between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610
and 915 meters) (Bagley 1998). The sandy soils that C. deserticola
requires can be found on alluvial fans and basins, stabilized sand
fields, and occasionally sandy slopes of desert dry lake basins. This
species typically grows in the cool, moist conditions of winter and
early spring, and goes dormant as the warmer weather progresses in
April and May (Bagley 1998). Very little is known

[[Page 64885]]

about the reproduction and recruitment of C. deserticola.

Range and Distribution

In 1915, Thomas Brandegee first described Cymopterus deserticola
from material collected near Kramer Junction, San Bernardino County,
California. The historic distribution of C. deserticola ranges from
Apple Valley, San Bernardino County, northward approximately 55 miles
(mi) (89 kilometers (km)) to the Cuddeback Lake basin in San Bernardino
County, and westward approximately 45 mi (73 km) to the Rogers and
Buckhorn Dry Lake basins on Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) in Kern and
Los Angeles Counties, California (Mitchell et al. 1995; California
Department of Fish and Game's California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) 2003).
The Apple Valley sites are known only from historic collections
made in 1915, 1920, and 1941. Recent attempts to locate Cymopterus
deserticola in areas of the historic Apple Valley collections have been
unsuccessful, and it appears that these sites have been lost as a
result of urban development and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (Moe
1988). The Apple Valley sites are also disjunct by at least 28 mi (45
km) from the nearest known extant populations (i.e., group of
individuals of the same species living and interacting in the same
geographic area). The known extant range of the species is confined
mostly to the Rogers Dry Lake, Harper Dry Lake, Cuddeback Dry Lake, and
Superior Dry Lake basins. The Rogers Dry Lake basin, where most of the
plants are known to occur, is located mainly on EAFB in the
southwestern portion of the species' range. The Harper Dry Lake basin
located in the central portion of the species' range is under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private land
owners. The Cuddeback Dry Lake basin located in the northern portion of
the species' range is under the jurisdiction of BLM. The Superior Dry
Lake basin located in the eastern portion of the species range is
mainly on Ft. Irwin, including the Ft. Irwin expansion area. This
extant range extends approximately 50 mi (80 km) from east to west and
35 mi (56 km) from north to south.
Since we published our 90-day finding on the petition to list the
species on February 10, 2004 (69 FR 6240), the CNDDB received one new
record of occurrence of Cymopterus deserticola in San Bernardino
County. This brings the total number of known records in the CNDDB to
71 populations as of May 2004. We also received additional records of
occurrence for Kern and San Bernardino Counties in 2003 and 2004
(Service files) which have not been entered into CNDDB. Currently there
are a total of 105 known populations of C. deserticola.
The greatest number of known populations and individuals is located
within the Rogers Dry Lake basin. The vast majority of the populations
(approximately 87 percent) in this basin are located on EAFB, with a
few of the known plants on BLM and private land to the north of the
base. Intensive surveys for Cymopterus deserticola were conducted on
EAFB in 1995 (Mitchell et al. 1995), during which 56 new populations
were discovered. In all, 85 C. deserticola populations were observed
within this basin in 1995, with 14,362 plants counted.
In 2003, EAFB developed a habitat model for Cymopterus deserticola
and two other plant species of concern, Calochortus striatus (alkali
mariposa lily) and Eriophyllum mohavense (Barstow woolly sunflower).
The model used the habitat attributes of the known occurrences of these
species. The purpose of the model was to identify other potential sites
where these species might occur. EAFB then conducted field surveys to
validate the model. Six new populations of C. deserticola were found on
EAFB and just to the north of the base during these field surveys (Wood
2003). These new populations increased the known distribution and
abundance of this species within the Rogers Dry Lake basin. Therefore,
at least 91 (not 92 as incorrectly reported in the 90-day finding (69
FR 6240)) populations of C. deserticola are currently known to occur
within the basin. According to the CNDDB (2004), the number of
individuals reported ranges from a single individual on less than 10.7
square feet (1 square meter) to a population of 5,377 individuals on
376.3 acres (ac) (152.3 hectares (ha)).
The Cuddeback Dry Lake basin is under the jurisdiction of BLM, and
the grazing privileges to this area have been acquired by non-profit
environmental groups. Although extensive surveys for Cymopterus
deserticola have not been conducted within the Cuddeback Dry Lake
basin, four populations are currently known to occur within the basin.
The number of individual plants in these populations varies from a few
to more than 40 (CNDDB 2004), and additional data collected by BLM and
the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2003 and 2004 (Service files)
regarding these populations are being submitted to the CNDDB. Dr.
Michael Conner of the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee has observed
individuals of C. deserticola within the Cuddeback Dry Lake basin and
believes that the number of individuals would be found to be higher
than is currently known if focused surveys for C. deserticola were
conducted in the Cuddeback Dry Lake basin (M. Conner, pers. comm.
2004). Glenn Harris of the BLM has also found C. deserticola to be more
prevalent and widespread within this basin than reported in the
petition and the CNDDB. He has found that the reported distribution and
abundance of this species within this basin increases as suitable
habitat is surveyed (G. Harris, pers. comm. 2004). He also believes the
distribution of individuals within this basin would potentially
increase if surveys focusing on C. deserticola and its habitat were
conducted, and the actual number of individuals within this basin
probably ranges from several hundred to a few thousand.
Six known populations of Cymopterus deserticola occur in the Harper
Dry Lake basin, totaling approximately 200 individual plants (BLM
2001). However, extensive surveys focusing on C. deserticola have not
been performed within this basin.
Within the Superior Dry Lake basin, Silverman and Cione (BLM 2001)
reported a previously unknown population of 40 individuals of
Cymopterus deserticola in 2001. The U.S. Army's Ft. Irwin conducted
surveys in 2004 and found that the species occurred in greater
abundance and over a wider area than previously known (Mickey Quillman,
Natural Resources Manager, Ft. Irwin, pers. comm. 2004). These surveys
did not include lands within the China Lake Naval Weapons Center
(CLNWC) or NASA's Goldstone facility that borders Ft. Irwin and the
western expansion area of the Army's National Training Center. However,
C. deserticola was observed at the boundary between Ft. Irwin and
CLNWC, and Ft. Irwin and Goldstone, indicating that there is high
probability that C. deserticola is also present on CLNWC and Goldstone.
The extent that a species is threatened depends on numerous
factors, including the species' range and distribution. Currently, the
known range of Cymopterus deserticola is primarily based on occurrence
data submitted to the CNDDB, but such data does not rule out the
existence of additional occupied areas. C. deserticola is cryptic in
nature, and often requires several years of surveying to identify
occupied and unoccupied habitat due to this species' short period of
above-ground foliage and inflorescence. Also, survey information for C.
deserticola is more complete for some areas than others, and large
areas

[[Page 64886]]

within the plant's range have not been surveyed. With the exception of
EAFB and the recent April and May 2004 surveys performed on Ft. Irwin's
western expansion area in the Superior Dry Lake basin, the range and
distribution of C. deserticola has been poorly documented, especially
for non-DOD lands. In addition, survey results are not always
comparable because of the variation in how individual plants and
populations (group of individuals of the same species living and
interacting in the same geographic area) are tallied across the
landscape. Moreover, surveys only count the individuals visible above
ground; consequently, survey numbers may represent only a subset of the
total number of individuals within a population. Because there are no
survey data for many areas, the range and distribution of C.
deserticola are not well established and may be more extensive than
indicated by currently available information. For example, many new
populations of C. deserticola were found during recent focused surveys
in Superior Dry Lake basin. From discussions with biologists from DOD
(M. Quillman, pers. comm. 2004), BLM (G. Harris, pers. comm. 2004), and
the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee (M. Conner, pers. comm. 2004),
C. deserticola is thought to be more abundant and have a wider
distribution than currently documented. Nevertheless, based on the
currently known numerous extant populations and the status of these
populations, discussed below, we have determined that listing is not
warranted at this time.

Discussion of Listing Factors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal endangered and threatened species list. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and
their application to Cymopterus deserticola are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range. According to the petition,
Cymopterus deserticola is potentially vulnerable to habitat alteration
and destruction due to military activities on EAFB, the expansion of
Ft. Irwin, utility construction, OHV use, oil and gas development, and
Land Tenure Adjustment (LTA) (a process whereby public and private
lands are exchanged and consolidated). Of the 71 C. deserticola
population occurrences reported in the CNDDB (2004), 55 (roughly 77
percent) are on land managed by EAFB, 9 are on BLM lands, 3 are on
private lands, and 4 are located on lands with unknown ownership.
Additional occurrences not yet reported to the CNDDB are located on
land managed by the BLM and private land owners.
One of the threats to known Cymopterus deserticola habitat
mentioned by the petitioners is from the cleanup of the Propulsion
Directorate Plume of groundwater contamination in the Rogers Dry Lake
basin area on EAFB (EAFB 1998). The petitioners claim that the
associated effects from extracting contaminated groundwater would be
surface disturbance and a massive change in hydrology, and that these
effects may imperil the persistence of this large population. However,
EAFB is not conducting, and is not planning to conduct, groundwater
extraction (EAFB in litt. 2004). The only activity that may affect C.
deserticola is groundwater monitoring, which includes installation of
wells and access to wells via foot traffic to sample groundwater at the
well sites. According to EAFB, from 1999 to 2003, cleanup activities
associated with this plume, which underlies this large population, have
disturbed less than 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of the 86 ac (35 ha) associated
with this known population. Therefore, the number of individual plants
affected by this action is expected to be minimal due to the extremely
small area of disturbance at this site.
Other military activities within the boundaries of EAFB include
occasional foot traffic to conduct wildlife and plant inventories.
These activities should have little or no impact on Cymopterus
deserticola. Activities in the eastern portion of the base are
generally limited to foot traffic and routine range operations that
have a minimal impact on C. deserticola, and ground training using
troops and vehicles in this area is rare, typically limited to existing
roads and cleared areas (EAFB, in litt. 2004). No other activities are
currently being conducted on EAFB that would affect the habitat of C.
deserticola (Shannon Collis, pers. comm. 2004).
At the time the petitioners submitted their petition, only a single
population of approximately 40 individual plants was known from the
Superior Dry Lake basin. The petitioners claimed that this population
would be threatened with extirpation from large-scale tank maneuvers
that would result from the expansion of Ft. Irwin. Although this may
have been the eventual outcome for the single known population, three
additional populations have been found in this basin since the petition
was submitted. These four populations vary by area and number of
individuals. One population is located on 33 acres and contained 12
individuals, a second population located on 61 acres contained 60
individuals, a third population located on 298 acres contained 366
individuals, and a fourth population located on 371 acres contained 484
individuals (Ft. Irwin 2004). Although military training exercises are
likely to adversely affect three of the four populations, Ft. Irwin has
installed a permanent fence around the 298 acres containing the 366-
plant population, thereby protecting this population from all military
operations as well as from OHV use and grazing (M. Quillman, pers.
comm. 2004). Permanent fencing has been effectively used by Ft. Irwin
to protect the threatened plant, Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain
milk-vetch) from military operations (M. Quillman, pers. comm. 2004).
Fencing for Cymopterus deserticola and A. jaegerianus is maintained by
Ft. Irwin on a monthly basis, and Ft. Irwin strictly enforces area
closures. Electronic monitoring devices warn tracked vehicles on
approach of closed areas, and breaches are rare (M. Quillman, pers.
comm. 2004).
Although focused surveys for Cymopterus deserticola have not been
conducted on CLNWC, which is located adjacent and to the north and west
of Ft. Irwin, plants are known to occur there (M. Quillman, pers. comm.
2004). Ground-based military training operations do not occur on CLNWC,
and threats to the plants on CLNWC are minimal. Focused surveys have
also not been conducted on BLM lands adjacent to Ft. Irwin in the
Superior Dry Lake basin. However, based on the presence of suitable
habitat for C. deserticola on BLM land, it is highly likely that plants
also occur there. As mentioned above, Ft. Irwin has conducted focused
surveys of the base. To locate new populations and further delineate
the range of the plant in the Superior Dry Lake basin, Ft. Irwin will
expand their surveys for C. deserticola to include areas outside of Ft.
Irwin's boundaries next year contingent upon adequate rains. CLNWC will
also conduct surveys for C. deserticola next year, contingent upon
adequate rains (Steve Penix, CLNWC, pers. comm. 2004). Therefore,
because of the large number of plants (366) and their habitat (298
acres) that Ft. Irwin is protecting and the presence of plants on CLNWC
where threats are minimal, we believe that C. deserticola is not likely
to be in danger of extirpation in this area within the foreseeable
future.
The petitioners claim that utility construction has impacted
Cymopterus deserticola and its habitat in the

[[Page 64887]]

southern portion of Harper Dry Lake basin and the northern portion of
Rogers Dry Lake basin. According to the petitioners, the known
locations of C. deserticola within this utility corridor are the result
of surveys performed for a linear energy project. Less than 1 percent
of known C. deserticola individuals are located within designated
utility corridors, and no new utility corridors are proposed in the
West Mojave Plan (WMP) (BLM 2003). Utility corridors are used for both
electrical transmission lines and oil and gas pipelines. Although past
utility construction has likely resulted in the loss of some habitat
and individual plants, we do not consider utility construction to be a
major current threat to this species because very few plants are known
to occur within existing corridors.
Heavy recreational OHV activity has been cited as seriously
impacting potential Cymopterus deserticola habitat and may have been at
least partly responsible for the extirpation of the population in Apple
Valley (Moe 1988). The petitioners claim that OHV activity has impacted
C. deserticola habitat in the Superior Valley, and BLM has assessed the
habitat at the single previously known Superior Valley population as
being in ``poor condition'' due to adverse effects from OHV recreation.
However, with the expansion of Ft. Irwin, recreational OHV activity is
now precluded from much of the area, and Ft. Irwin has now permanently
fenced a large, 366-plant Superior Dry Lake population, thereby
protecting it from OHV activity.
We have been unable to find any documentation indicating OHV
activity as a threat to Cymopterus deserticola and its habitat within
the Harper, Rogers, and Cuddeback Dry Lake basins. According to the WMP
(BLM 2003), the Harper Dry Lake basin area is used for environmental
education, nature study, and wildlife viewing, and OHV use is
restricted to the open routes of travel. Within the Rogers Dry Lake
basin located on EAFB, OHV activity is not allowed. Within the
Cuddeback Dry Lake basin area, where there may be as many as a few
thousand plants (G. Harris, pers. comm. 2004), OHV activity is
designated by the BLM as a ``limited'' use area; in limited use areas,
``motorized-vehicle access is allowed only on certain existing routes
of travel, which include roads, ways, trails, and washes'' (BLM 1980).
In designated ``open'' use areas, ``vehicle travel is permitted
anywhere in the area if the vehicle is operated responsibly in
accordance with regulations and subject to permission of private land
owners if applicable'' (BLM 1980). Open use areas are the preferred
destination for OHV enthusiasts, and receive much more activity than
limited or moderate use areas. This does not mean, however, that OHV
activity is nonexistent in limited or moderate use areas, but rather
the threat of OHV activity in these areas is minimal due to the
majority of OHV activity taking place in open areas. Because OHV
activity is either not permitted, or only permitted to the limited
passage of vehicles across the area and allowed only on designated
existing roads, and that the areas described above do not receive the
level of OHV activity as open areas, we do not consider OHV use as a
major threat to C. deserticola populations within the Harper, Rogers,
and Cuddeback Dry Lake basin areas.
Presently, and in the foreseeable future, the existence of
Cymopterus deserticola does not appear to be threatened by oil and gas
development. We are not aware of any oil and gas development projects
within the area occupied by C. deserticola, nor is BLM aware of any
such projects (Larry Lapre, BLM, pers. comm. 2004).
The petitioners expressed concern regarding one population located
north of EAFB in the Peerless Valley that is available for LTA. They
state that this action would potentially remove another site from
public domain. However, according to the Record of Decision for the
Western Mojave Land Tenure Adjustment Project, ``Should a listed or
sensitive species, other than those previously covered by consultation
and conference, be found on a parcel proposed for disposal during site
specific analysis, consultation will be initiated with Federal and
State fish and wildlife agencies to determine if mitigation should be
applied prior to or after disposal or if the disposal should not
occur'' (BLM 1991). Since Cymopterus deserticola is considered by BLM
to be a sensitive species, either the loss of this site would not occur
or would be mitigated.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes. The listing petition acknowledges, and we agree,
that current data do not indicate that this factor constitutes a threat
to Cymopterus deserticola.
C. Disease or Predation. The listing petition acknowledges, and we
agree, that current data do not indicate that disease constitutes a
threat to Cymopterus deserticola. The listing petition also
acknowledges that there is currently nothing in the scientific
literature about the effects of livestock grazing on this species.
However, grazing has been documented as a threat on EAFB in the Rogers
Dry Lake basin area (EAFB, in litt. 2004), and as noted by the
petitioners, grazing continues to occur in several areas within the
range of C. deserticola.
Even though livestock grazing on EAFB is prohibited, a research
study site for Cymopterus deserticola on EAFB was directly affected
when the aboveground portion of all plants were eaten by trespass sheep
in 1994. By 2001, EAFB installed a fence along the boundary of the base
preventing access by livestock and eliminating the threat of grazing on
C. deserticola in the Rogers Dry Lake basin area of EAFB (EAFB, in
litt. 2004).
Cymopterus deserticola occurs within the 26,314-ac (10,649-ha)
Harper Lake cattle grazing allotment, which is within the Harper Dry
Lake basin and is managed by BLM. In the past, trespass grazing (cattle
and sheep) from this allotment has been chronic on adjacent lands where
a population of C. deserticola is located (BLM 1998). BLM has installed
a fence to reduce the possibility of trespass grazing on the adjacent
land and to confine the grazing to the allotment itself where, for the
time being, grazing still occurs (Charles Sullivan, BLM, pers. comm.
2004). Therefore, currently, grazing by livestock on C. deserticola and
potential impacts (e.g., trampling, soil compaction) to the habitat
have been minimized in the Harper Dry Lake basin, and we believe that
C. deserticola is not likely to be in danger of extirpation in this
area within the foreseeable future. In addition to the fencing
installed by BLM, as mitigation for the Ft. Irwin expansion area, the
Army has purchased lands within the Harper Lake cattle grazing
allotment (Anthony Chavez, BLM, pers. comm. 2004). As a condition for
this purchase, the owner has relinquished all grazing privileges to the
allotment. Therefore, cattle grazing will no longer occur in this
allotment, and the potential threat to C. deserticola from grazing will
be eliminated from this large area.
Cymopterus deserticola occurs within the 49,000-ac (19,830-ha)
Pilot Knob cattle grazing allotment, which is located within the
Cuddeback Dry Lake basin. To benefit the desert tortoise, the Desert
Tortoise Preserve Committee (Preserve Committee) and the Wildlands
Conservancy purchased 1,360 ac (550 ha) of desert tortoise critical
habitat within the allotment and thereby gained control of all grazing
privileges, water rights, structures, and range improvements for the
entire allotment (Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee 1996). The
Preserve Committee does not

[[Page 64888]]

allow any livestock grazing to occur within the Pilot Knob allotment.
Although the elimination of grazing in this 49,000-ac area is to
protect the desert tortoise, the potential threat of grazing to C.
deserticola has also been eliminated.
Grazing has occurred within the Superior Dry Lake basin in the
past. However, with the expansion of Ft. Irwin, grazing is now
precluded from much of the area, and Ft. Irwin has now permanently
fenced a large, 366-plant Superior Dry Lake population, thereby
protecting it from grazing.
At the Rogers Dry Lake basin, high levels of ``leaf predation'' on
Cymopterus deserticola were observed in two studies on EAFB in areas
not grazed by livestock (Mitchell et al. 1995; Charleton 1993). Such
grazing was likely due to a variety of native animals such as black-
tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), brush rabbits (Family
Leporidae), ground squirrels (Family Sciuridae), kangaroo rats (Family
Heteromyidae), mice (Families Cricetidae), desert tortoise,
caterpillars (Order Lepidoptera), and beetles (Order Coleoptera)
(Bagley 1998). Although the effects of grazing on C. deserticola by
native wildlife are unknown, this type of grazing is a natural
component of the Mojave Desert ecosystem, and we do not believe that
native wildlife is a threat to C. deserticola.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. We have not
used the WMP in our finding regarding Cymopterus deserticola because it
is presently still in draft form, and is therefore, not an existing
regulatory mechanism. However, the petitioners expressed concern about
the draft WMP, which will function as a multiple species habitat
management plan for the desert tortoise and other listed and sensitive
species within the planning area. They claim that Cymopterus
deserticola has been dropped from the planning process because the
species cannot have a viable conservation strategy without military
participation (BLM 2002). However, according to the draft Environmental
Impact Report and Statement (EIR/EIS) for the WMP (BLM 2003), C.
deserticola has not been dropped from the plan. The EIR/EIS states that
C. deserticola that occurs in the northern Rogers, Cuddeback, and
Harper Dry Lake basin areas is a species targeted for conservation
measures. Conservation of this species is addressed on the portion of
its known range that is outside of EAFB. The draft WMP (BLM 2003)
requires botanical surveys for projects proposed within suitable
habitat for C. deserticola (the North Edwards Conservation Area, and
the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese Desert Wildlife Management
Areas (DWMAs)). If the plant is located, prescriptions call for
avoiding all individuals to the maximum extent practicable and
reporting the loss of any plants. In Kern County, the draft WMP
proposes the following measures: establishing the North Edwards
Conservation Area (NECA) to protect C. deserticola populations that
extend off of EAFB, requiring botanical surveys, limiting new ground
disturbance to 1 percent of a DWMA, applying a 5:1 mitigation ratio
within the Conservation Area, and adjusting the boundary of the NECA
over time to reflect survey results. BLM intends to issue a final WMP
within the next few months, and to begin implementing these
conservation measures shortly thereafter.
The petitioners state that the lack of management or conservation
strategies by EAFB and the ongoing projects on EAFB that adversely
affect this species leave the future survival of Cymopterus deserticola
populations in most of the Rogers Dry Lake basin uncertain. They also
state that, since the core populations of this species are located on
EAFB, without assured conservation measures in place, the long-term
survival of C. deserticola remains in question.
As discussed above under Factor A, threats to Cymopterus
deserticola on EAFB are minimal. In April 2004, EAFB revised the
October 2001 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) to
include C. deserticola, thereby providing further assurance that the
threats will remain minimal. The 2004 INRMP contains conservation
measures (e.g., develop and implement an education awareness program,
project review, project alternatives designed to minimize impacts,
construction monitoring, habitat modeling) to manage for C. deserticola
and funding for research (e.g., population status, additional habitat
modeling, reproductive biology, growth experiments) on this species. In
addition, one of the objectives of EAFB is to use existing inventory,
monitoring, and research data to develop a management and long term
monitoring plan. Thus, the 2004 INRMP for EAFB has a management
strategy for the conservation of C. deserticola.
Based on the overall status of Cymopterus deserticola and the
inclusion of C. deserticola in the INRMP for EAFB where the vast
majority of the plants occur, the existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate. In the future, the inclusion of C. deserticola in the WMP
will provide further protective measures to other populations outside
of EAFB.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence. The petitioners claim that the extremely limited
distribution and relatively small numbers of individuals of Cymopterus
deserticola make populations vulnerable to stochastic extinction.
Although it is possible that a few populations with very small numbers
of individuals could be lost, we believe that the species is not at
risk of extinction from stochastic events. The number of populations
and individuals is now known to be greater than reported in the
petition, and the species is distributed over a relatively broad area
(approximately 50 mi (80 km) from east to west and 35 mi (56 km) from
north to south). Because most of the one-hundred plus populations are
secure, or have very minimal threats, we believe that listing is not
needed at this time. Also, we are not aware of any other factors that
may be considered a threat to C. deserticola at this time.

Petition Finding

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by this species. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, other published and unpublished information, and comments
submitted to us during the public comment period following our 90-day
petition finding, and we consulted with recognized botanists and
experts from other resource agencies. On the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
proposal to list Cymopterus deserticola as threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range is not warranted
at this time. A summary of threats to the 105 total known populations
of C. deserticola is provided in Table 1; we have evaluated the threat
level using a scale of none, minimal, low, moderate, and high. Some of
the threats described by the petitioners have now been minimized or
reduced (e.g., grazing) in some areas. Some potential threats described
by the petitioners are not expected to occur (e.g., change in hydrology
on EAFB as a result of groundwater extraction or oil and gas
development). Although some C. deserticola habitat will be lost to
military training in the Ft. Irwin expansion area, Ft. Irwin has
protected a large population in this basin, which in fact contains a
larger number of individuals (366 rather than 40 individuals) within
the expansion area than was mentioned in the petition. Overall, we
believe the remaining

[[Page 64889]]

threats to the species are minimal to low. Public agencies and
organizations have also implemented actions that have eliminated or
reduced the threats to various populations of C. deserticola (e.g.,
elimination of grazing from the Pilot Knob grazing allotment and the
Harper Lake grazing allotment). Of particular importance, EAFB, where
the vast majority of populations (approximately 87 percent) are known
to occur, has included and implemented conservation measures for C.
deserticola in the most recent revision to its INRMP. Overall, threats
to C. deserticola on EAFB are minimal (Table 1).

Table 1.--General Summary of the Status of the 105 Total Known Populations of Desert Cymopterus (Cymopterus deserticola)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Basin General land ownership known Identified threats Status of threats Threat level
populations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Dry Lake.................... Edwards Air Force Base 91 Cleanup............... Not occurring......... None.
(EAFB).
.............. Military activities... Limited activities.... Minimal.
.............. Grazing............... Fencing installed on Minimal.
EAFB.
.............. Utilities............. No new corridors...... Minimal.
.............. Inadequacy of INRMP modified........ Minimal.
management.
Cuddeback Dry Lake................. BLM................... 4 Grazing............... None in 49,000 acre None to Minimal.
Pilot Knob allotment.
.............. Off Highway Vehicle Limited use........... Minimal to low.
(OHV) use.
.............. Energy................ Not expected.......... None.
Harper Dry Lake.................... BLM/private........... 6 Grazing............... Eliminated as None to Minimal.
mitigation for Ft.
Irwin expansion.
.............. OHV use............... Moderate use.......... Low.
.............. Energy................ Not expected.......... None.
.............. Utilities............. No new corridors...... Minimal.
Superior Dry Lake.................. Ft. Irwin............. 4 Military activities... Protection of large \1\ None to high.
population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ft. Irwin has eliminated the threats to one large, 366-plant population. Threats from military training to the other three populations are moderate
to high.

We will continue to monitor the status of this species and will
accept additional information and comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this finding. This information will help us
monitor and encourage beneficial measures for this species.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available on
request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).

Author

The primary author of this document is Robert McMorran, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES
section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: October 29, 2004.
Marshall P. Jones Jr.,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-24700 Filed 11-8-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P