37978 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 188 I Wednesday, September 28, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

speciesfrom a rock stream bed in nodosum are reduced tohollow, quill- DeKaIb County, . These like structures. The small white flowers were named Harpereia nodosaand occur inheads not unlike those of Harpereiofluviatilis respectively,in “Queen Annes lace” (Daucuscarota), honor of their discoverer (Rose 1905, and may appear from May to frost. P. 1911). Mathias (1936) noted that despite nodosum typically occurs in two habitat — their verydifferent leafstructure, these types: (1) Rocky or gravel shoals and plants were notgenerically distinct from margins of clear, swift-flowing stream 50 CFR Part 17 members of the genus Ptllimnizjm. Thus, sections, and (2) the edges of they became Ptiimnium nodosum and intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet Endangered and Threatened Wildlife P. fluviatile, although they are 8till savannah meadows in the coastal plain and Plants; Determination of referred to by the common name, (Kral 1983). In Georgia, the only known EndangeredStatus for harperella. extant population occurs on a granite nodosum In a recent examination of these taxa, outcrop seep. This seemingly atypical AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Services, Kral (1981) concluded that their setting actually has a water regime not Interior. observable differences in morphology unlike that of more characteristic pond and phenology were very likelydue to habitat for this (Rawinski and ACTION: Final rule. environmental factors, rather than to Cassin 1986). SUMMARY: The Service determines inherent genetic differences. This is Harperella is always found on (harperella) as an supported by the observation that both saturated substrates and readily endangered species, under the authority forms have six chromosome pairs tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, (Easterly 1957). Kral (1981) observed This tolerance may, in fact, be of key as amended (Act). This annual plant, that the riverine form, P. fluviatile, is importance to the plant’s survival, for which is a memberof the carrot family, shorter and develops roots at the nodes, few potential competitors are adapted to occurs inAlabama, Georgia, North and probably because the plants are such water fluctuations. In riverine South Carolina, , and frequently inundated and toppled by situations, short-duration spring floods . P. nodosum hasbeen swift-flowing water in the stream annually scour the gravel bars or rock eliminated from over half of its known situations they inhabit. Conversely, the crevices where P. nodosum grows, historical population sitesrangewide. taller, erect and non-proliferous plant8 preventing substantial soil None of the ten currently known viable referred to as P. nodosum occur in the accumulations inwhich weedy populations is in Federal ownership or fringe of grass and sedge around ponds, competitors might gain a foothold. When other permanently protected status, where they are less likelyto be knocked floodwaters subside harperella seeds although The Nature Conservancy has down by floodwaters. That these germinate in shallow, rocky areas and an easement on a small portion of one morphological differences were complete their life cycle with their root population in West Virginia and is environmentally induced was systems submerged or saturated. tryingto protectpopulations inother particularly evident to Kral (1981) in the Similarly, pond sites are normally full of States. This action implements Federal Little River population of “P. fluviatile” water in the spring and, depending on protection provided by the Act for in Alabama; there, the plants from the the rainfall, often well into the summer. Ptiimnium nodosum. higher seep areas, where flooding is The plants have completed their life infrequent, were more clearly assignable cycle by late summer or fall, when the EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 1988. to the “P. nodosurn” type. Differences in pondsare often devoid of standing ADDRESSES: The complete file for this floweringtime between the pond and water and competing species have rule is available for public Inspection, by river forms are also likely due to moved in. As in the riverine situation, it appointment, during normal business environmental factors, such as appears that P. nodosurn has survived hours at Ecological Services Field differences in temperatureand time of by its adaptation to changing water Office, 1825 Virginia Street, Annapolis, flooding (R. Kral, Vanderbilt University, levels that few other plants can tolerate. Maryland 21401. pers. comm., 1987). Because thereis no Because of its very specific habitat FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT apparent way to take into account their requirements,harperella canbe easily Judy Jacobs, EndangeredSpecies variation and yet to distinguish the two extirpatedfrom an area even by Biologist at the above address (301/289-. taxa, KraI (1981) synonymized the two seemingly minorperturbations. In 5448). underP. nodosum, the earlier name. In riverine situations, for example, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this rule, the Service follows Kral’s prolonged or intensified flooding, as a treatment; thus, references to P. result of upstream land use changes, Background nodosum will be meant to include P. could wash away its substrate and its In 1902 Dr. RolandM. Harper fluviutile, unless otherwise indicated. seed bank. Conversely, reductions or discovered a previously undescribed P. nodosurn, an annualplant, Is a lack of flooding, as from upstream plant growing in a shallow pineland member of the carrot family () impoundments, could decrease the pond in Schley County, Georgia. Three that grows to a height of 0.2—1.0 meter. species’ competitive edge over more years later, Dr. Harper collected what Unlike those of the more common common streamside plants. In pond appeared to be a second, closely related members of this genus, the leaves of P. situations, ditching and draining for Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 188 I Wednesday, September 28, 1988 I Rules and Regulations 37979 irrigation and/or agriculture would be of Carolina (three viable populations in data on biological vulnerability and obvious detriment to harperella. Aiken and Saluda Cos. The species may threats is not currently known or on file Conversion topermanent ponds could be presentin small numbers at two to support proposed rules. On November also eliminate this species. Additional additional sitesin South Carolina, but 28, 1983, the Service published in the threats facing P. nodosurn include its presence has not been confirmed Federal Register a supplement to the siltation of its stream habitat from recently and these are not considered to Notice of Review for Native Plants (48 construction and mining activities havelong-term viability). Stream FR 53640); the plant notice was again upsteam. habitat loss resulting from populations typically consist of tens of revised September 27, 1985 (50 FR bank stabilization and landowner thousands of individuals patchily 39526).Ptiimnium nodosum and P. access to waterfront, and water quality distributed along short stream sections. fluviatile were included in both of these degradation from excessive nutrient Location of these patches and number of revisions as Category 2 species. As loading of streams. individuals may change from year to stated above, the Service now considers Because harperellagenerally occurs in year. Pond populations are more these to be a single species, Ptilimnium areas with a high potential for human spatially predictable and typically nodosurn. use, these threatshave already number in the hundreds. However, In 1985 the Service contracted with impacted P. nodosum at various numbers of individuals in these The Nature Conservancy’s Eastern locations throughout its range. In populations too may fluctuate Regional Office to conduct status survey Alabama, one of the three known considerably from year to year. work on Ptilimnium nodosum (including historic sites for the species is under a Federal government actions on this P. fluviatile) and several other Federal reservoir and anotherhas been speciesbegan as a result of section 12 of candidate species. Their report eliminated by excessive siltation and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, (Rawinskl and Cassin 1986) and other water quality degradation (R. Kral, pers. which directed the Secretary of the information indicate that. P. nodosurn comm; pers. obs.). Numerouscoastal Smithsonian Institution to prepare a and P. fluviatile are appropriately plain ponds in South Carolina and report on those plants considered to be considered a single taxon, that the Georgia, including the type locality, endangered, threatened, or extinct. This number of extant sites for P. nodosurn have been drained or otherwise severely report (HouseDocument No. 94—51) was has declined significantly, and that there disturbed. In West Virginia. ten presented to Congress on January 9, is a high degree of threat to remaining thousand plantswere destroyed in 1984 1975. populations. by construction at a housing The Service published a notice in the Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered subdivision. Throughout its range, over July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR Species Act, as amended in 1982, 50 percent of the known harperella 27823), of its acceptance of the report of requires the Secretary to make certain populations have beendestroyed. the Smithsonian Institution as a petition findings on pending petitions within 12 State heritage programs and within the context of section 4(c)(2) months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of interested individuals have conducted (petition provisions are now found in the 1982 amendments further requires intensive searches for P. nodosum. In section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and its that all petitions pending on October 13, West Virginia, over 260 miles of stream intention thereby to review the status of 1982, be treated as having been newly habitat, comprising nearly all the the plant taxa namedtherein. On June submitted on that date. This was the suitable habitats in the State, have been 16, 1976, the Service published a case for Ptiimnium nodosurn, because checked (R. Bartgis, West Virginia proposal in the Federal Register (41 FR the 1975 Smithsonian report had been NaturalHeritage Program, pers. comm., 24523), to determine approximately 1700 accepted as a petition. On October 13, 1987); In Maryland also, surveys have vascular plant taxa to be endangered 1983; October 12, 1984; October 11, 1985; been made of nearlyall known suitable species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. October 10, 1986; and October 11, 1987, habitats for the species (D. Boone, Ptilimnium nodosum and P. fluviatile) the Service found that the petitioned MarylandHeritage Project pers. comm. were included in the July 1, 1975, and listing of Ptiimniuxn nodosurn was 1987), and in South Carolina, a total of June 1978 Federal Register documents, warranted butprecluded by other listing 360 coastal plain ponds have been General comments received in relation actions of a higher priority and that examined inan effort to locate this plant to the 1978 proposal were summarizedin additional data on vulnerability and (D. Rayner, South Carolina Heritage an April 28, 1978, Federal Register threatswere still being gathered.On Trust pers. comm., 1987). In Georgia publication (43 FR 17909). The February 25, 1988, the Service published extensive searches have been made of Endangered Species Act Amendments of in the Federal Register a proposal tolist bothgranite outcrops and coastal plain 1978 required that all proposals over 2 Ptilimnium nodosum as an endanger ponds (T. Patrick, Georgia Natural years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace species (53 FR 5736). That proposal Heritage Inventory; R. Carter, Valdosta period was given to proposals already constituted the final finding required by State College, pers. comms. 1987). over 2 years old. In the December 10, the Endangered Species Act. Georgia and Alabama sections of the 1979, Federal Register (44FR 70796), the Little River have also been checked (D. Service published a notice of Summary of Comments and Whetstone, Jacksonville State withdrawal of the June 6, 1976, proposal, Recommendations University pers. comm. 1987). Despite along with four other proposals that had In the February 25, 1988, proposed these searches, Ptilimnium nodosum is expired. rule, all interested parties were presently known from only ten On December 15, 1980, the Service requested to submit factual reports or populations rangewide. Theseinclude published in the Federal Register a information that might contribute to the six stream populations, in Alabama revised Notice of Review for Native development of a final rule. Copies of (Dekalb Co.), Maryland (Allegany Co.), Plants (45 FR 82480). P. nodosum and P. the February 25, 1988, proposed rule (one each in Granville fluviatile were included in that notice as were sent to appropriate Federal and and Chatham Cos.) and West Virginia Category 2 species. Category 2 includes State ag2ncies, county officials, (two Morgan Co.) and four pond those taxa for which listing as scientific organizations and other populations, in Georgia (one known endangered or threatened species may interested parties, with a.request to extant, in Greene Co.) and South be warranted but for which substantial provide factual information that might 37980 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 1988 / Rules and Regulations contribute tothe development of a final the Act. These projects might require of harperella. The stretch of the Little rule. Newspaper notices inviting modifications to accommodate the River in which it occurs in Alabama comment from the general public were needs ofharperella; however, it has may be receiving both excessive published inthe Aiken Standard(Aiken, been the experience of the Service that nutrient loading from insufficient South Carolina), Atlanta Constitution nearlyall section 7 consultations are sewage treatment and acid runoff from (Atlanta, Georgia), Durham Herald resolved so that the species is protected unreclaimed surface mines. This (Durham, North Carolina), Fort Payne and the project objectives are met. population is also threatened by the Times-Journal (Ft. Payne, Alabama), existence upstream of two unstable HagerstownHerald (Hagerstown, Summary of Factors Affecting the impoundments that could break and Maryland), and Martinsburg Evening Species eliminate or degrade remaining Journal (Martinsburg, West Virginia). As After a thorough review and harperella habitat in Alabama (D. a result of these notifications, eight consideration of all information Whetstone, pers. comm). Maryland’s comments were received. Four of these available, the Service has determined one known harperella population was comments were from state agencies, two that harperella should be classified as threatened by siltation and runoff were from private sectorconservation an endangered species. Section 4(a)(1) associated with the construction of a groups and two from private individuals. of the Endangered Species Act (16 highway nearby. Although corrective The conservation groups, namely, The U.S.C. 1513 etseq.) and regulations (50 measures have been taken, it is not Nature Conservancy and the Maryland CFR Part 424) promulgated to Implement certain that the threat to this site has Enviromental Trust, wrote In full the listing provisions of the Act were been totally eliminated. Additional support of the listing action and followed. A species may be determined potential threats that have come to light indicated their willingness to assistwith to be an endangered or threatened include the development olan industrial further conservation efforts for species due to one or more of the five plant upstream of the harperella harperella. The West Virginia, factors described in section 4(a)(1). population on the Deep River In North Maryland, and North Carolina These factors and their application to Carolina and the proposed water Departments of Natural Resources also Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathies withdrawal from the Cacapon River indicated that they fullysupport this (harperella) are as follows: associated with the developments at listing. Two of these letters pointed out A. The Present or Threatened Cacapon State Park in West Virginia. additional potential threats to Destruction, Modification, or The estimated loss of 50 percent of harperella, as follows. Curtailment ofits Habitat orRange known populations of Ptilimnium Preliminary planning has begun for The effects of human activities upon nodosum may actually be conservative; the development of an industrial plant the habitat types in which Ptiimnium the species was known historically from upstream of the harperella populationon nodosum occurs have resulted In the a few traditional “good” collecting the Deep River in North Carolina, This permanent elimination of the plant and spots, but since it occupies habitat types project could alter the hydrology ofthe its habitat in many locations throughout that have been so extensively altered by river. Secondly, in West Virginia, the its range. In Alabama, siltation, human activities, it is likely that other Department of Commerce is considering eutrophication and an Impoundment populations were destroyed without proposals to construct a ski resort have eliminated the plant from two of its being discovered. development at CacaponState Park, three known historic localities. In B. Overutiization for Commercial, which might require the diversion of Georgia and South Carolina, at least Recreational, Scientific or Educational water from the Cacapon River for winter four Ptiimnium nodosum populations Purposes snowmaking and summer irrigation of were obliterated when the ponds they the Park’s golf course. This also has the inhabited were drained and converted Harperella has notbeen a targetfor potential for altering the hydrology of to agriculture or otherwise severly collection, since It is not a showy plant the river, thereby potentially impacting disturbed. Of the five populations and would not survive under normal harperella. The two letters from private known to remain in South Carolina, two garden conditions. Although the plant citizens were related to this project In have been so severely disturbed that has been collected for scientific study, West Virginia. Both expressed they are no longer considered viable (D. this does not constitute a threat for the opposition to the listing on the basis that Rayner, pers. comm.). In West Virginia, species. this action would interfere with the an estimated ten thousand harperella development of the state park facilities, plants were recently destroyed during C. Disease orPredation thus adversely impacting economic construction of a vacation home In its pond habitat, P. nodosum may growth and orderly development of this subdivision (Rawinski and Cassin 1986). occasionallybe subject to grazing or area of Morgan County. Section 4 of the Approximately 90 percent of the plants trampling, where it occurs along the Endangered Species Act as amended remaining at this siteare now restricted margins ofponds that have been altered (Act) and regulations set forth to to a 300-foot section of stream, where for use by livestock. However, the interpretand implement this section, they are vulnerable to trampling and/or disruption of Its habitat, rather than any require that listing determinations be streamside alterations. occasional grazing, poses the more made solely on the basis of the best Other cases of habitat disruption may severe threat. Disease is not known to available information regarding a be less obvious yet no less detrimental be a problem for this species. species~status, without reference to to the plants. Harperella populations D. The Inadequacy ofExisting economic or other impacts of such a occurring at Harper’sFerry, West determination. The information Virginia in the 1830’s and at Hancock. Regulatory Mechanisms presentlyavailable on these projects is Maryland, in the early 1900’s have been Ptiimnium nodosum is not known to not 8ufficient to assess impacts to eliminated, probably by industrial occur on Federal land and presently harperella at this time. If there is development and the operation of receives no protection under any Federal involvement with these projects, riverside canals and railroads. Water Federal law. The species’ habitat it is likely that they will require qualitydegradation may also be receives limited protection under section consultation, as specified in section 7 of threatening certain stream populations 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 37981

Control Act; however, section 404 does publication of critical habitat maps, it being studied. Other federally funded or not assure that the habitat of an unlisted could be easily extirpated by vandals or permitted actions which could affect this species will not be adversely modified. curiosity seekers. Because it does not plant include, but are not limited to, SCS Some populations do occur on State- occur on Federal land, such taking watershed management activities. owned land, in streams over which would not be prohibited by the FERC-permitted hydroelectric projects, Stateshave jurisdiction, or on preserves Endangered Species Act. In stream construction projects involving Federal owned by The Nature Conservancy. In situations also, these plants would be Highway Administration or Farmers North Carolina and Maryland. the plant vulnerable to vandalism if the stream Home Administration funds, or those is protected from trade and sections in which they occur were within the jurisdiction of the Corps of unauthorized take. However, except in specifically located. The State agencies Engineers. Maryland, where it receives limited and landowners involved in managing The Act and its implementing protection, it is not protected from the habitat of this species have been regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61, 17.62, habitat loss, the primary threat toits informed of the plant’s general locations and 17.63 set forth a series of general survival. The Nature Conservancy and and of the importance ofprotection. trade prohibitions and exceptions that State Natural Heritage Programs, Therefore, the determination of critical apply to all endangered plants. All trade particularly in West Virginia and South habitat would not be prudent, and no prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act. Carolina, have beenactively pursuing additional benefitwould result from it. implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, would both easements and voluntary Available Conservation Measures apply. These prohibitions, inpart, would protection agreements with landowners. make it illegal for any person subject to The agreements, while potentially very Conservation measures provided to the jurisdiction of the United States to useful in protecting the plants, have no species listed as endangered or import or export, transport ininterstate legal authority. threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, or foreign commerce in the course of a E. Other Natural orManmadeFactors recovery actions, requirement8 for commercial activity, sell or offer for sale Affecting its ContinuedExistence Federal protection, and prohibitions this species in interstate or foreign In West Virginia, the exotic grass against certain practices. Recognition commerce, or to remove and reduce to Arthraxon hispidus is seen as a through listing encourages and results in possession the species from areas under potential competitor toP. nodosum. conservation actions by Federal, State, Federal jurisdiction. Certain exceptions Over the past decade, this aggressive and private agencies, groups, and can apply to agents of the Service and Asian introduction has become individuals.The EndangeredSpecies State conservation agencies. The Act widespread in many parts of the State. Act provides for possible land and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide As an annual, it can compete directly acquisition and cooperation with the for the issuanceof permits to carry out with harperella for occupation of States and requires recoveryactions be otherwise prohibited activities involving ephemeral habitats; without control, A. carriedout for all listed species. Such endangered species wider certain hispidus could overrun and locally actions are initiated by the Service circumstances. In the case of Ptilimnium extirpate harperella. followinglisting. The protection required nodosum, it is anticipated that few trade The Service has carefully assessed the of Federal agencies and the prohibitions permits would ever be sought or issued best scientific and commercial against taking are discussed, in part, since thespecies is not common in information available regarding the past, below, cultivation or in the wild. Requests for present, and future threats faced by this Section 7(a) of the Act,as amended, copies of the regulations on plants and species in determining to make this rule requires Federal agencies toevaluate inquiries regarding them may be final.Based on this evaluation, the their actions with respect to any species addressed to the Office of Management preferred action is to list Ptilimnium that is proposed or listed as endangered Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife nodosum as endangered. At least eight or threatened and with respect to its Service, P.O. Box 27329, Washington, DC populations are known tohave been critical habitat. Regulations 20038 (202/343—4955). destroyed, and overhalf of the implementing this interagency National Environmental Policy Act remaining known populations, together cooperation provisionof the Act are constituting over 95 percent of the codified at 50 CFR Part 402. Section The Fish and Wildlife Service has known individuals, are faced with 7(a)[2) requires Federal agencies to determined that an Environmental continuing habitat degradation. ensure that activities they authorize, Assessment, as defined under the Although stream populations may be fund, or carry out are not likely to authority of the National Environmental large in terms of number of individuals. jeopardize the continued existence of a Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared destruction or degradation of their listed species or to destroy or adversely in connection with regulations adopted habitat would be equally effective at modify its criticalhabitat. If a Federal pursuant to section 4(a) of the extirpating them regardless of their action may affect a listed species or its Endangered Species Act of 1973, as number. critical habitat, the responsible Federal amended. A notice outlining the agency must enter into formal Service’s reasons for this determination Critical Habitat consultation with the Service. was published in the Federal Register on Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, At present, the Service has not October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). requires that to the maximum extent identified any ongoing projects with prudent and determinable, the Secretary Federal involvement known to have References Cited designate any habitat of a species which potential impacts toP. nodosum. The Easterly, N.W. 1957. A morphological study of is considered to be critical habitat at the Marylandpopulation is being monitored Pliiirnnium. Brittonia 9:136—145. time the species Is determined to be by MarylandNatural Heritage Program Kral, R. 1981. Notes on some quill-leaved umbellifers. Sida 9:124—134. endangered or threatened. The Service biologists to ensure the effectiveness of Kral. R. 1983. A report on somerare. finds that designation of critical habitat erosion control measures associated threatened or endangered forest-related is not prudent for Pti/imnium nodosum. with the construction of Route48 in vascularplants of the South. Tech. PubI. In its pond habitats, if its location were Western Maryland. The biology and R8—TP--2. USDA—Forest Service, paper specifically delineated, as though the dynamics of this population are also 258. 37982 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

Mathias. M.E. 1938. Studies In the List of Subjects In 50 CFRPart 17 Authority: Pub. L 93—205.87 Stat, 884: Pub. Umbelliferae V. Bnttonia 2:239—245. L. 94—359, 90 Stat. 911: Pub. L 95—632, 92 Stat. Rawinski. T. and J. Cassin. 1988. Final Status Endangered and threatened wildlife, 3751: Pub. L 98-159. 93 Stat. 1225: Pub. L 97-. survey for 32 plants. TNC Unpbl. Rept. Fish, Marine mammals, Plants 304, 96 Stat. 1411 (18 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): Pub. submitted to U.S.FWS, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. (agriculture). L 99—625. 100 Stat. 3500 (1986), unless Rose, J.N. 1905. Two new umbelliferous otherwise noted. plants from the coastalplain of Georgia. Regulation Promulgation Proc. Nat. Acad. Sd. 29:441-3. 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding the Rose, J.N. 1911. Two new species of Accordingly, Part 17, Subchapter B of following, In alphabetical order under Harperella. Contr, U.S. Nat. Herb. 13:289— Chapter I,Title 50 of the Code of Federal the Family Apiaceae, to the List of 90. Regulations, Is amended as set forth Endangered and Threatened Plants: Author below: The primary author of this final rule is § 17.12 Endangered and threatened Judy Jacobs, Annapolis Field Office, U.S. PART 17—(AMENDEDI plants. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1825 Virginia * * * * Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301/ 1. The authority citation for Part 17 269—5448). continues to read as follows: (h) * *

I’tistodc range Status Whea Inted S~~5I Scientific name Common name

Aplaceae—Parsley Family

PtilimMini nodosum (~ P. Haiperelia ...~..._ U.S.A. (AL., G~MD. NC, SC, WV)... E 332 NA NA mn~.

Dated: September 2, 1988. Susan Recce, ActingAssistant SecretoryforFish and Wildlife andParks. IFR Doc. 88—22151 Filed 9-27—88; 8:45 aml B1LUNG COOS 4S10-U-M