Schwalbea Amelicana
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
American Chaffseed (Schwalbea amelicana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation US. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region New Jersey Field Office Pleasantville, New Jersey as of October 2008 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americarna) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... ..l 1 . 1 Reviewers ............................................................................................................... ..1 12 Methodology Used to Complete the Review ....................................................... ..1 1.3 Background .......................................................................................................... ..2 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... .2 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ................... ..2 2.2 Recovery Criteria ................................................................................................. ..3 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status ................................................ ..8 2.3.1 Biology and habitat .................................................................................. ..8 2.3.2 Five-factor analysis .................................................................................. .20 2.4 Synthesis ............................................................................................................ .21 .30 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ ..24 3 .1 Recommended Classification .............................................................................. .24 3.2 Recommended Recovery Priority Number .................................... .-. ....................24 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS .................................................... .24 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................ ... ...................... ............. ..26 Signature Page ......................................................... ............................................................... ..31 Tables - Table 1. summary of Protected American Chaffseed Occurrences 2008 ................................. ..4 Table 2.. American Chaffseed Sites With or Suitable for Long-Term Protection Agreements -~ Table 3. Comparison of Status of American Chaffseed Sites 1995 vs. 2008 ......................... ..14 S-YEAR REVIEW American Chaffseed (Schwalbea emericena) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Field Office: New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey Annette Scherer, 609-383-3938 AnnettemScherer @fwsgov Eric Davis, 609-383-3938 [email protected] Lead Regional Office: Northeast Region (Region 5), Hadley, Massachusetts Mary Perkin, 617-417-3331 -- Marngarkin @fws.gov Cooperating Field Offices: Northeast: New England Field Office, Susi von Oettingen, 603-223-2541 New York Field Office, Robyn Niver, 607-753-9334 Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Mary Ratnaswamy, 410-573-4541 Virginia Field Office, Mike Drummond, 804-693-6694 Southeast: Charleston Field Office, Terra Keeler Baird and Jason Ayers, 843-727-4707 Louisiana Field Office, Bridgette Firmin, 337-291-3108 Kentucky Field Office, Mike Floyd, 502-695-0468 Tennessee Field Office, Geoff Call, 931-528-6481 Raleigh Field Office, Dale Suiter, 919-856-4520 Athens Field Office, James Rickard, 706-613-9493 Alabama Field Office, Eric Spadgenske, 334-441-5181 , Cooperating Regional Office: Southeast Region (Region 4), Atlanta, Georgia Kelly Bibb, 404-679-7132 1.2 Methodology Used to Complete the Review This 5-year review was primarily conducted as an individual effort by the lead endangered Species biologist for American chaffseed. US. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Offices, State natural resource agency personnel, and knowledgeable researchers and botanists throughout the species range were contacted for updated information on ...occ':urrenees, threats, and .recoveryactivities- All pertinent available literature, reports, and other documents on file at the New Jersey Field Office were used for this review. In conducting this 5-year review, we relied on available information pertaining to historic and current distributions, life history, and habitat of this species. Our sources include the final rule listing this Species under the Act; the recovery plan; peer reviewed scientific publications; unpublished field observations by the Service, State, and other experienced biologists; unpublished survey reports; and notes and communications from other qualified biologists. 1.3 Background 1.3.1 Federal Register (FR) notice announcing initiation of this review: January 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 15; pages 3991-3993) . 1.3.2 Listing history: FR notice: September 29, 1992 (Volume 57, Number 189; pages 4470344708) Date listed: October 29, 1992 Entity listed: Species Classification: Endangered 1.3.3 Associated rulemakings factions: None 1.3.4 Review history: The 1995 recovery plan includes an assessment of the Species” status. Annual recovery data calls were conducted in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Recovery accomplishments and any known changes in threats to the species were evaluated during these annual reviews. 1.3.5 Species’ Recovery Priority Number at start of 5-year review (48 FR 43098): The recovery priority for American'chaffseed is 7, indicative of a species with a moderate degree of threat, high recovery potential, and taxonomic standing as a- monotypic genus. 1.6.6 Recovery plan: Name of plan: American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Recovery Plan Date issued: September 29, 1995 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy 2.1.1 Is the species under review a vertebrate? No. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines species as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate wildlife. This definition limits listing DPS to only vertebrate Species of fish and wildlife. -- Because -the species under review is a-plant, the DPS policy-is notapplicablri- . 2.2 Recovery Criteria 2.2.1 Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan containing objective, measurable criteria? The plan contains approved downlisting criteria, but not delisting criteria. 2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery criteria: 2.2.2.1 Do the recovery criteria reflect the best available and most up-to-date information on the biology of the species and its habitat? No, the recovery criteria were based on the number of extant sites known at the time of listing and recovery plan preparation. Since that time, some American chaffseed sites have been lost or are degraded and are not suitable for long-term protection and/or management. Forty sites (> 20%) that were known to be historic or extant when recovery criteria were developed have not been surveyed in the last 10 years; the status of these sites is unknown. If a large portion of these sites are no longer extant or suitabie for reestablishment of American chaffseed, then the recovery criteria would be unattainable as currently written. Further, new information on the Species biology and habitat is available that would allow for reconsideration of current downlisting criteria and development of delisting crlteria. 2.2.2.2 Are all of the relevant listing factors addressed in the recovery criteria (and is there no new information to consider regarding existing or new threats)? Yes. Listing Factors A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range) and E (other natural or manrnade factors) are adequately addressed by recovery criteria relative to habitat protection and management, and life history and genetics research.- Although not explicit, recovery criteria relative to habitat protection and management would address threats in Listing Factors C (disease or predation) and D (inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms). While the recovery criteria do not address Factor B (overutilization), only isolated events of over-collecting for scientific or recreational use were reported prior to the species listing and no new information regarding this threat was found during this review. The magnitude of this threat appears low. The impact of climate change was not specifically considered in the recovery criteria, but would be addressed by recovery criteria relative to habitat protection and management, monitoring, and life history research. 2.2.3 List the recovery criteria as they appear in the recovery plan, and discuss how each criterion has or has not been met, citing information: Downiisting Criteria According to the recovery plan, reclassification of American chaffseed from ----endangered to-threatened will be considered when the following conditions have . been met. 1. “Long-term protection is achievedfor 50 geographically distinct, selj'l sustaining populations. The papulation sites must be protectedfrom development and other anthropogenic threats that may interfere with the species’ survival. Protection ofpopulations on private lands will be evidenced through landowner agreements or conservation easements. Protection of Schwalbea on public lands will be secured through agreements that ensure the long-range protection, management, and monitoring of Schwalbea. Protected sites will be distributed to include, at a minimum, all ofthe