Federal Register, Volume 62 Issue 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33029-33038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC96

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for Four Plants From Vernal Pools and Mesic Areas in Northern
California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), for four plants--Lasthenia conjugens (Contra Costa goldfields),
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (few-flowered navarretia),
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha (many-flowered navarretia), and
Parvisedum leiocarpum (Lake County stonecrop). These species grow in
and around the margins of vernal pools and in seasonally wet areas in
northern California. Habitat loss and degradation imperil the continued
existence of these plants. This final rule implements protection
provisions of the Act for listed plants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Sacramento Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Ave., Suite 130,
Sacramento, California 95821-6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Warne or Kirsten Tarp (see
ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lasthenia conjugens was described from specimens collected near
Antioch in Contra Costa County, California (Greene 1888). Hall (1914)
included the taxon within Baeria fremontii, however, Ferris (1958)
later recognized this material as B. fremontii var. conjugens. Ornduff
(1966) submerged the genus Baeria under Lasthenia and recognized the
specific rank of L. conjugens.
Lasthenia conjugens is a showy spring annual in the aster family
(Asteraceae) that grows 10 to 30 centimeters (cm) (4 to 12 inches
(in.)) tall and is usually branched. The leaves are opposite, light
green, and usually have a feather-like arrangement with narrow clefts
extending more than halfway toward the stem. The flowers are found in
terminal yellow heads. The phyllaries are one-third to one-half fused;
the achenes are less than 1.5 millimeters (mm) (0.06 in.) long and
always lack a pappus. Lasthenia conjugens flowers from March to June.
The partially fused phyllaries and the lack of a pappus distinguish
this species from L. fremontii and L. burkei, which it otherwise
closely resembles.
Habitat for Lasthenia conjugens consists of vernal pools in open
grassy areas of woodland and valley grassland communities. Vernal pools
are a natural habitat type of the Mediterranean climate region of the
Pacific coast and the Central Valley of California. Covered by shallow
water for extended periods during the cool season but completely dry
for most of the warm season drought, vernal pools hold water long
enough to allow some purely aquatic organisms to grow and reproduce,
but not long enough to permit the development of a typical pond or
marsh ecosystem. The alternation of very wet and very dry conditions
creates an unusual ecological situation that supports a unique biota
(Zedler 1987). Lasthenia conjugens occurs at elevations up to 213 m
(700 feet (ft)) (Ornduff 1966) although one disjunct location, which is
possibly extirpated, occurred at an elevation of 469 m (1540 ft)
(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1996).
Historically, Lasthenia conjugens grew in vernal pool habitats in
seven counties--Alameda, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, Napa, and Solano counties, California. Currently, the species is
known from a total of 13 populations in Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa,
and Solano counties (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1978, CNDDB
1996). Eight of these populations were discovered after

[[Page 33030]]

publication of the proposed rule and are located within the original
range of the species near Fairfield in Solano County, and near Fremont
in Alameda County (CNDDB 1996, Duncan & Jones 1996). One population of
L. conjugens occurs in Contra Costa County, two in Napa County, one in
Alameda County, and nine in Solano County. Of the nine populations
located in Solano County, eight are clustered near the town of
Fairfield and one is located at Travis Air Force Base. The population
located at Travis Air Force Base is the only population on Federal
land; all other populations are on private lands.
The type specimen for Navarretia pauciflora was collected from a
playa 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi)) north of Lower Lake, Lake
County, California (Mason 1946). Day (1993) revised the treatment of
Navarretia and reduced N. pauciflora to a subspecies of N.
leucocephala. More than a dozen species of Navarretia occur in the
region, including several restricted to vernal pools. Both N.
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha are
restricted to northern ash-flow volcanic vernal pools, a pool type with
a very limited distribution. (CNPS 1994; Todd Keeler-Wolfe, California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm. 1996).
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is a low-growing,
spreading, and much-branched annual herb in the phlox family
(Polemoniaceae). This plant grows to a height of 1 to 4 cm (0.4 to 1.6
in.). The nearly hairless leaves are linear and entire, or parted into
a few linear lobes, and 1 to 2.5 cm (0.4 to 1.0 in.) long. The
inflorescence is a head of 2 to 15 blue or white (fading to blue)
flowers. A few spiny, leaf-like bracts below each head extend out 1.5
to 3 times the radius of the head; bracts within the head are shorter.
The funnel-shaped corollas are 5 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in.) long with
five lobes 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) long. Each corolla lobe has a single
unbranched vein. The stigma has two minute lobes. Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora flowers from May to June.
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is found growing in
volcanic ash substrate, clay pan vernal pools in chaparral, grassland,
or mixed coniferous forest in southern Lake and Napa Counties. The
subspecies occurs over a 50 square-kilometer (sq-km) (20 square-mile
(sq-mi)) area at elevations of 450 to 850 m (1,400 to 2,800 ft).
Historically, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora was known from nine sites
in Napa and Lake counties. The subspecies has become extirpated from
six historical localities (CNPS 1990a; Alva Day, California Academy of
Sciences, in litt. 1993). Two new localities were found in 1989. The
five extant populations occur on private lands.
Five subspecies of Navarretia leucocephala are currently recognized
(Day 1993), two of which may hybridize with N. leucocephala ssp.
pauciflora (A. Day, pers. comm. 1993). These two subspecies, N.
leucocephala ssp. bakeri and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha, differ
from N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora in stature, degree of hairiness,
or size, number or lobing of floral parts. In addition, the flower
color in ssp. plieantha differs, being bright blue rather that white or
pale blue as in ssp. pauciflora. As stated in the Service's proposed
policy on the treatment of intercrosses and intercross progeny (61 FR
4710; February 7, 1996), ``intercross progeny'' (hybrids) that are the
result of a cross involving a listed taxon receive protection under the
Act if the progeny more closely resemble the listed parent's taxon.
This policy, if finalized, will primarily apply to a population at Loch
Lomond, which is a product of intercross between ssp. plieantha and
ssp. pauciflora (A. Day, in litt. 1993). If the policy is finalized,
the Loch Lomond population of N. leucocephala will be treated as if it
were listed because both parental taxa will be listed with the
publication of this rule. The intercross policy could also apply to two
historical populations in Sonoma County. Day identified herbaria
specimens of these populations as intermediates between ssp. plieantha
and ssp. bakeri (a non-listed taxon) (A. Day, in litt. 1993). However,
at least one of these populations appears to be no longer extant
(McCarten 1985, CNPS 1987). Should these populations be rediscovered, a
morphological assessment would be required to determine the
applicability of any intercross policy and subsequent protection under
the Act.
Navarretia plieantha was described from the margin of Bogg's Lake
in Lake County, California (Mason 1946). Day reduced the taxon to a
subspecies of N. leucocephala in her revised treatment (Day 1993).
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is distinguished from N.
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora by its more numerous and multi-flowered
heads (20 to 60 flowers versus 2 to 15), and in having three or more
pairs of outer bracts with the bract lobes being forked or three-four
branched from the base. It is distinguished from other Navarretias in
the region by stature, degree of hairiness, or size, number, or lobing
of floral parts.
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is a low growing annual herb
in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) that forms a mat 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8
in.) wide. The 3 to 4 cm (1.0 to 1.6 in.) long leaves are linear or
have a few widely spaced linear lobes. The inflorescence is a head
composed of 20 to 50 white or blue flowers. Each head is 1.5 to 2 cm
(0.6 to 0.8 in.) across and is subtended by 3 to 4 leaf-like bracts
that are simple-pinnate or compound-pinnate and extend outward 1 to 2
times the radius of the head. The bracts within the head are shorter.
The funnel-shaped corolla is 5 to 6 mm (0.20 to 0.24 in.) long with
five lobes each 2 mm (0.7 in.) long. The stigma is two-cleft.
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha flowers in May and June.
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is found in dry meadows,
along the margins of volcanic ash substrate vernal pools and lakes, and
in open, wet ground in forest openings. It occurs over a 1,000 sq-km
(390 sq-mi) area at elevations of 700 to 915 m (2,300 to 3,000 ft).
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is historically known from eight
locations in Lake and Sonoma counties, California. Two historical
populations in Sonoma County are considered potentially extirpated
(CNDDB 1996) and were possibly hybrids between N. leucocephala ssp.
plieantha and N. leucocephala ssp. bakeri. All five extant populations
are found in Lake County (A. Day, in litt. 1993). Four of the extant
populations are located on private land; one of these is located on The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve at Bogg's Lake. The fifth population
is an intercross population (N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N.
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora) that occurs on State land at Loch Lomond.
As discussed above, as an intercross population resulting from two
listed species, this population could receive protection under the Act
if the proposed hybrid policy is finalized. This site is managed as an
ecological reserve by the CDFG.
Parvisedum leiocarpum is a low, erect to spreading annual in the
stonecrop family (Crassulaceae) with reddish stems 3 to 5 cm (1 to 2
in.) tall. The fleshy, oblong leaves are 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 in.)
long and fall off the stem by flowering time. The inflorescence is a
cyme of campanulate (bell-shaped) yellow flowers that are crowded on
curving stems in two rows. The five petals are 3 to 3.5 mm (0.12 to
0.14 in.) long with large, club-shaped, red nectaries. The five carpels
have smooth surfaces. Parvisedum leiocarpum flowers in April and May.
Parvisedum leiocarpum was described from an area 10.4 km (6.5 mi)
north of Lower Lake, Lake County,

[[Page 33031]]

California, as Sedella leiocarpa (Sharsmith 1940). Clausen (1946)
subsequently placed the plant in the genus Parvisedum and gave it the
specific rank of P. leiocarpum. Two similar species occur within the
range of P. leiocarpum. Parvisedum pentandrum differs in having shorter
petals, top-shaped flowers, and carpels with glandular bumps on the
surfaces. Crassula connata differs in having only one to a few, four-
petaled flowers above each leaf base not arranged in definite cymes.
Parvisedum leiocarpum is found on volcanic substrates in areas of
impeded drainage, such as in and along the margins of vernal pools and
depressions in bedrock. The historical range of the species encompasses
six collection localities within a 16 km (10 mi) radius from Siegler
Springs near Lower Lake, Lake County, California (CDFG 1991b).
Elevations of occurrences range from 395 to 790 m (1,300 to 2,600 ft).
Parvisedum leiocarpum has apparently disappeared at three sites within
this area (CDFG 1991b, CNPS 1990b). The extant populations of P.
leiocarpum collectively cover a total area of less than 1.2 hectares
(ha) (3 acres (ac)). All populations occur on private lands.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result
of section 12 of the 1973 Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on
those plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the
United States. This report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was
presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Lasthenia
conjugens as threatened, and Navarretia pauciflora (now known as N.
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora), Navarretia plieantha (now known as N.
leucocephala ssp. plieantha), and Parvisedum leiocarpum as endangered.
The Service published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register
(40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian
Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2)
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and
its intention to review the status of the plant taxa named in the
report. The above four taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice.
On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal
Register (42 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant
species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The
list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and
data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in
response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal
Register publication. Navarretia pauciflora and N. plieantha were
included in the June 16, 1976, Federal Register document. General
comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were summarized in
an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909).
The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all
proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was
given to those proposals already more than 2 years old. In the December
10, 1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796), the Service published a
notice of withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, proposal.
The Service published an updated candidate notice of review for
plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included
Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia plieantha, and
Parvisedum leiocarpum as category 1 candidates for Federal listing.
Category 1 candidates were those species for which the Service had on
file sufficient information to support issuance of proposed listing
rules. On November 28, 1983, the Service published a supplement to this
notice of review (48 FR 39526) which changed L. conjugens, N.
pauciflora, N. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum from category 1 to category
2 candidates. Category 2 candidates were those species for which the
Service had information indicating that listing may be warranted but
for which it lacked sufficient information on status and threats to
support issuance of proposed listing rules.
When the plant notice was revised on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526), Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia
plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum were included as category 2
candidates. When the plant notice was again revised on February 21,
1990 (55 FR 6184), L. conjugens, N. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum were
elevated to category 1 candidates. Navarretia pauciflora was retained
as a category 2 candidate. Since the publication of that notice, the
Service has received additional information on the status of Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora that supports the listing of this species.
The September 30, 1993, plant notice of review (58 FR 51144) included
all four plant taxa as category 1 candidates. As announced in a notice
published in the February 28, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 7596), the
designation of multiple categories of candidates has been discontinued,
and only former category 1 species are now recognized as candidates for
listing purposes.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make
certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their
receipt. Section 2(b)(1) further requires that all petitions pending on
October 13, 1982, be treated as having been newly submitted on that
date. This was the case for Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora,
Navarretia plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum because the 1975
Smithsonian report had been accepted as a petition. On October 13,
1982, the Service determined, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, that the petitioned listing of these
species was warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions;
notification of this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR
2485). Such a finding requires the petition to be recycled, pursuant to
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. The finding was reviewed in October
of 1983 through 1993.
A proposed rule to list Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha,
and Parvisedum leiocarpum as endangered was published on December 19,
1994 (59 FR 65311). The proposal was based on information from the
CNDDB and observations and studies by numerous botanists. The Service
now determines L. conjugens, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, N.
leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum to be endangered with
the publication of this rule.
The processing of this final listing rule conforms with the
Service's final listing priority guidance published in the Federal
Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the
order in which the Service will process rulemakings following two
related events: (1) The lifting on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on
final listings imposed on April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6), and (2) the
restoration of significant funding for processing listing actions. The
Service's Sacramento Field Office has confirmed that the status of the
four species in this rule has not changed since publication of the
proposed rule prior to the moratorium on final listings.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the December 19, 1994, proposed rule and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that contribute to the development of a final
rule. A 60-day comment period closed on February 19, 1995, and was
extended to April 28, 1995 (the

[[Page 33032]]

moratorium on final listings was imposed on April 10, 1995 (Public Law
104-6)). Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county and city
governments, scientists, and interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. In accordance with its July 1, 1994, peer review
policy (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited three independent
specialists to review pertinent scientific and commercial data and
assumptions relating to the proposed rule. Two of the three specialists
submitted comments. One specialist found the proposed listing to be
concise and technically accurate. The other specialist commented only
on the discussion and descriptive paragraphs about Navarretia. This
specialist's comments have been incorporated into the ``Background''
section of this rule.
The Service published notices in the Lake County Record-Bee and the
Napa County Register on December 30, 1994, which invited general public
comment. Twenty-two individuals or agencies, including the CDFG, the
Lake County Farm Bureau, and the CNPS, submitted comments. Several
people submitted more than one comment to the Service. Ten commenters
supported, five opposed, and seven were neutral on the proposed action.
In response to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service
received written requests for a public hearing from Michael Delbar,
Executive Director, Lake County Farm Bureau, and Daniel Macon, Director
of Industry Affairs, California Cattlemen's Association. Notice of the
public hearing was published in the Napa Register, Petaluma Argus-
Courier and Santa Rosa Press Democrat on March 20, 1995, and in the
Lake County Record-Bee on March 21, 1995. A public hearing was held at
the Napa Valley Marriott Hotel in Napa on April 6, 1995, from 6 pm. to
8 pm. Eight people presented oral and written testimony.
Written comments and oral statements presented at the public
hearing or received during the comment period are addressed in the
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are
discussed below.
Issue 1: Four commenters expressed concern that the protection
afforded listed species by the Act would violate private property
rights, and result in a ``taking'' of property. Two commenters
questioned whether they would be monetarily reimbursed for property
loss if the listed species were found on their land.
Service Response: The Attorney General has issued guidelines to the
Department of the Interior (Department) regarding Taking Implications
Assessments (TIAs). The Attorney General's guidelines state that TIAs
used to analyze the potential for Fifth Amendment taking claims are to
be prepared after, rather than before, an agency makes a restricted
discretionary decision. In enacting the Act, Congress required the
Department to list a species based solely upon scientific and
commercial data. The Service may not withhold a listing decision based
upon economic concerns. Therefore, even though a TIA may be required, a
TIA for a listing action is finalized only after the final
determination whether to list a species is made.
The listing of species as threatened or endangered typically does
not result in the ``taking'' of private property. The determination of
whether ``taking'' has occurred as a result of an agency's action is
made by a court based on the specific facts of that action.
Issue 2: Several commenters questioned the accuracy of the
supporting information. Concern was expressed that many areas may
contain potential habitat for the species and, therefore, the species
may be more widespread than stated in the proposed rule. One commenter
stated that the primary findings for Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and Parvisedum leiocarpum
were based on only two sources.
Service Response: Specific justification for listing the four plant
species is summarized in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section of this rule. The Service used information obtained
from Federal, State, and local agencies, the CNDDB, professional
botanists, and studies by Niall McCarten (1985), Robert Ornduff (1966),
and Alva Day (1993) that were specifically directed at determining the
distribution or threats to the four plant taxa. The Service also used
information from botanical collections of these plants to prepare the
proposed rule. Destruction and loss of habitat and extirpation of
populations of the four plant taxa from a variety of causes have been
documented. Following publication of the proposed rule, the Service
sought comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, species
experts, and other individuals, including three independent
specialists. All information received during the public comment period
has been incorporated into the final rule.
The taxa in this rule are restricted in their range. More detailed
discussion of the historical and current distribution of these four
plants can be found in the ``Background'' section of this rule. The
Service's two primary sources of information on Navarretia leucocephala
ssp. plieantha, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and Parvisedum
leiocarpum are compilations of information from a number of
inventories, and, therefore, not limited in scope.
Issue 3: Several commenters stated that livestock trampling was
unsubstantiated and had no or little adverse effect on these four
vernal pool plants.
Service Response: Documented observations of detrimental effects of
livestock trampling on some populations of two of the vernal pool
plants, Lasthenia conjugens and Navarretia leucocephala spp.
pauciflora, exist and are part of the administrative record for this
rule. In addition, two populations of Parvisedum leiocarpum may be
threatened by trampling by livestock (CDFG 1989a). The Service
maintains that livestock trampling, under certain conditions, adversely
affects these species (CDFG 1989a, 1989b, 1991; CNPS 1987, 1990a,
1990b). Livestock trampling is one of a number of impacts adversely
affecting these three vernal pool plants.
Issue 4: Two commenters were concerned about whether the data on
which the rule was based were acquired legally. One of these commenters
asked whether permission was given by landowners to the CDFG, the CNPS,
or any other person to enter private property in order to do the
surveys on which the listing is partially based.
Service Response: An important information source used for this
rule is the CNDDB operated by the Natural Heritage Division of the
CDFG. Data in this system come from a variety of experts, including
local professional botanists, members of CNPS, and botanical
consultants. The Service does not condone entering private land without
landowner permission. Because the database records make no reference to
whether permission was granted to those collecting data, the Service
has no knowledge whether observers obtained landowner permission to
enter private lands. No surveys of these species were conducted or
funded by the Service.
Issue 5: One commenter was concerned about the potential impacts
the listing would have on agricultural operations in Lake County. This
commenter stated that the effects on the economic viability of
agriculture on lands on which the species occur would be severe. This
commenter also wanted to know what impact the listing would have on
grazing on public lands.

[[Page 33033]]

Service Response: Section 4(b)(10)(A) of the Act requires that
listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. The legislative history of this provision
explains the intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions
are ``based solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological
considerations from affecting such decisions'' (H. R. Rep. No. 97-835,
97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). As further stated in the legislative
history, ``Applying economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species
listing process is applying economics to the determinations made under
section 4 of the Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of
the word ``solely'' in this legislation'' ( H. R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th
Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). Because the Service is precluded from
considering economic impacts in a final listing decision, the Service
has not examined such impacts.
The Service expects this listing to have negligible effect on
grazing on public lands. Except for one location of Lasthenia conjugens
on Federal land (at Travis Air Force Base), all known populations of
these plants are on private land. No known vernal pools or habitat for
these plant species are located on federally owned grazing land in the
counties in which these species occur (P. Bardwell, Bureau of Land
Management, pers. comm. 1996)
Issue 6: The CDFG noted the discrepancies between the locations and
distributions of populations of each species in the proposed rule
versus the information from the CNDDB.
Service Response: In the preparation of both the proposed and final
rules, the Service used information provided by Dr. Alva Day for the
number and locations of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and N.
leucocephala ssp. plieantha. Dr. Day's population information matched
the taxonomic circumscriptions in her revised treatment for Navarretia
(Day 1993), which the Service considers to be the best available
information and most recent treatment. The Service has also
incorporated the most recent information for Lasthenia conjugens into
the rule. Some of this information is not contained in the CNDDB;
therefore, location and distribution figures in this rule will not
exactly match those in the CNDDB.
Issue 7: One commenter requested that the proposed rule be amended
to give complete descriptions of all sites and their watersheds. This
commenter also stated that the delineation of the potential range of
the species on U.S. Geological Survey (1:24,000) quadrangle sheets
would be helpful. Additionally, this commenter stated that listing the
species as endangered will likely increase the threat of overcollection
by rare plant collectors.
Service Response: The Service believes that publication of detailed
site information, such as map locations or site descriptions, may
increase the threat of overcollection by rare plant collectors. Because
the ranges of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, N. leucocephala
ssp. plieantha and Parvisedum leiocarpum are small, the plant
populations might easily be located. Therefore, the Service considers
it imprudent to publish site-specific information.
Issue 8: One commenter stated that information on hydrological
changes at the vernal pool sites during the recent droughts is needed,
because the mesic conditions may have disappeared before the
alterations were made.
Service Response: The Service disagrees that further information on
hydrological changes at the sites because of the recent drought is
needed prior to listing. These plants evolved in a climate where
periodic droughts occur. As discussed under factor A in the ``Summary
of Factors Affecting the Species'' section, the human-caused
alterations to hydrology are the primary threat. Although hydrological
modeling may have some utility for aiding the species' recovery, the
Service does not believe this information is needed to support the
listing justification for the four vernal pool plants in this rule.
Issue 9: The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
discussed two highways (State Route 175 and State Route 29) that are
adjacent to populations of the proposed plants. The agency stated that
the current maintenance activities along State Route 175 and State
Route 29 are not likely to affect the long-term survival of these
species. Additionally, CALTRANS stated that no major construction
projects were planned for these segments of highway.
Service Response: The Service acknowledges CALTRANS' support of
this listing action, but remains concerned about the potential loss of
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and Parvisedum leiocarpum
adjacent to State Route 29 and the hybrid population of Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. plieantha X ssp. pauciflora adjacent to State Route
175. As discussed further under factor A in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section of this rule, the Service believes
highway maintenance activities along State routes 29 and 175 may be a
threat to these species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, the Service has determined that Lasthenia conjugens,
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum should be classified as endangered
species. Procedures found at section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act were followed. A species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to
Lasthenia conjugens Ornduff (Contra Costa goldfields), Navarretia
leucocephala Benth. ssp. pauciflora (H. Mason) Day (few-flowered
navarretia), Navarretia leucocephala Benth. ssp. plieantha (H. Mason)
Day (many-flowered navarretia), and Parvisedum leiocarpum (H. Sharsm.)
R. T. Clausen (Lake County stonecrop) are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range. The primary threats to Lasthenia
conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum are activities
that result in the direct destruction of the plants and their habitats
or hydrologic changes in their vernal pool habitats. Such activities
include urbanization, wetland drainage, vernal pool and pond
construction, industrial development, agricultural land conversion,
ditch construction, off-highway vehicle use, road widening, horseback
riding, and trampling by cattle. Damage or destruction of vernal pool
habitat happens quickly and easily due to the extremely crumbly nature
of the soil and the dependency of the pool upon an intact durapan or
impermeable subsurface soil layer.
Lasthenia conjugens is no longer found in three of the seven
counties in which it historically occurred--Mendocino, Santa Clara, and
Santa Barbara counties. Agricultural land conversion, urbanization, and
associated developments have extirpated populations of this species in
Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Santa Barbara counties (CNDDB
1993, 1996; CNPS 1978). Agricultural land conversion extirpated one
additional population of L. conjugens in Napa County (CNDDB 1993).
Widening and straightening of Ledgewood Creek north of Cordelia Road in
Solano County by the Corps eliminated a large amount of

[[Page 33034]]

habitat and a large number of plants of L. conjugens (Ann Howald, CDFG,
pers. comm. 1993).
The largest known concentration of Lasthenia conjugens populations
occurs in Solano County near the City of Fairfield. The General Plan
for the City of Fairfield indicates that all of these populations are
found in areas that will be included within the Fairfield urban
boundary (Jones & Stokes Assoc. 1992). The implementation of this plan
would result in the conversion of approximately 3912 ha (9,668 ac) of
existing habitat and open space to urban use by 2020 (Jones & Stokes
1992). This would include approximately 1376 ha (3400 ac) within the
Travis/Northeast growth center where the greatest concentrations of L.
conjugens occur. Two proposed residential development projects threaten
the three largest populations of L. conjugens which contain over 70
percent of all individual plants of this species (Lafer and Associates
1994, Holland 1995). One of these populations is also threatened by
landfill construction activities (LSA Associates, Inc. 1992). This
population may also be threatened by a ditch construction project
proposed by the California Department of Water Resources (R. Preston,
in litt. 1995).
Urbanization threatens the largest population of Lasthenia
conjugens in Napa County (CNDDB 1993; Jake Ruygt, CNPS, in litt. 1993).
Off-highway vehicle traffic has adversely impacted this same population
(CNDDB 1993). In Contra Costa County, the primary transportation
corridor, State Route 4, will be relocated to approximately 80 to 100
feet from the only remaining population in the county (Woodward-Clyde
Consultants et al. 1995; J. Gan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.
comm. 1996). Six of the eight newly discovered populations of L.
conjugens in Solano and Alameda counties are imminently threatened by
development projects (Steve Lafer and Associates 1994, CNDDB 1996,
Duncan & Jones 1996).
One population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora has been
adversely affected by drainage, and one population has been adversely
affected by an attempt to create a more permanent water source (CDFG
1989b). One site, Manning Flat in Lake County, has significantly eroded
as a result of excavation of drainage ditches; this erosion has reduced
the population and the habitat (McCarten 1985, CDFG 1989b), CNDDB
1996). This population is also within the right-of-way of State Route
29 (H. Sarasohn, CALTRANS, in litt. 1995), and the Service is concerned
that individual plants may be impacted by highway maintenance. The
intercross population of N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N.
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Loch Lomond is also adjacent to a
highway, State Route 175 (H. Sarasohn, in litt. 1995), where
maintenance activities could result in the loss of plants. Off-highway
vehicle use has damaged several population sites in Lake County (CDFG
1989b, CNDDB 1996). Conversion of land to a rice field adversely
affected another N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora population in Lake
County (CDFG 1989b). Construction of a stock pond for cattle partially
destroyed the population of N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Ely Flat
in Lake County and severely altered the hydrology of its habitat (CDFG
1989b, 1996). Agricultural land conversion threatens this same
population (CDFG 1989b; CNPS 1990a). Attempted drainage of a pool in
Lake County containing N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha has resulted in
the invasion of two competitive weeds, Centaurea solstitialis and
Taeniatherum caput-medusa (CNDDB 1996). Although the intercross
population of N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N. leucocephala ssp.
pauciflora at Loch Lomond occurs in an ecological reserve managed by
the CDFG, the site is potentially threatened by timber harvesting
within the watershed. ``Such harvesting could have significant
detrimental effects on the vernal pool and its flora.'' (B. Gibbons,
CDFG, in litt. 1995).
Attempted drainage has altered the hydrology of two of the three
remaining vernal pools containing populations of Parvisedum leiocarpum
(CNPS 1990b). Drainage attempts at one of the sites resulted in severe
erosion and a reduction of habitat and plant numbers (CNPS 1990b).
Maintenance of Highway 29 by CALTRANS also threatens to impact
individuals of this population, which is found within the highway
right-of-way (CNPS 1990b). Discing has occurred at the third population
site (CNDDB 1996). All populations occur on privately owned land next
to major roads. Off-highway vehicle use has occurred at two of the
three P. leiocarpum population sites (CNPS 1990b). Within the range of
P. leiocarpum, habitat continues to be converted to vineyards and
orchards (CDFG 1989a).
Some populations of three of the four species are impacted by
trampling by livestock or rooting by feral pigs. Because they are small
and delicate, Parvisedum leiocarpum plants would likely be severely
damaged if trampled by livestock. Because cattle grazing occurs in the
area surrounding at least one population of P. leiocarpum, trampling
may pose a threat to this population (CNDDB 1996, CDFG 1989a).
Livestock grazing threatens four populations of L. conjugens (CNDDB
1996). The single extant occurrence of L. conjugens in Napa County
occurs in a grazed field. Nutrient enrichment of the vernal pool caused
by cattle has led to algal ``blooms'' and possibly other biotic changes
in the pool that adversely affect the growth of L. conjugens (Robert
Ornduff, University of California, Berkeley, in litt. 1995). Eighty
percent of one population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora in
Napa County was adversely affected by the rooting of feral pigs (John
Hoffnagle, Napa County Land Trust, pers. comm. 1995). Horse grazing
threatens two populations and cattle grazing threatens one population
of N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (CNDDB 1996).
Three of the species, Parvisedum leiocarpum, Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha, occur
in restricted habitats primarily within 2 to 6 miles of Clear Lake in
Lake County. The area surrounding Clear Lake is the most densely
populated area in the county (California State Department of Finance
1992), and is subject to residential development (CDFG 1989a, CDFG
1989b, CNPS 1990a). While the rate of this development is moderate when
compared to other areas of the region, the limited habitat of these
species makes them vulnerable to even small increases in development.
Off-highway vehicle use has resulted and continues to result in the
destruction of plants and habitat of Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha at four population sites in Lake County. The CDFG has
provided fencing at the Loch Lomond site to prevent off-highway vehicle
entry into the area (CDFG 1991a).
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Due to the limited distribution of Lasthenia
conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum, indiscriminate
collecting of plants could seriously affect these species.
Overutilization is not known to occur at this time.
C. Disease or predation. Disease and predation are not known to be
a threat to these plants.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The State of
California Fish and Game Commission has listed Parvisedum leiocarpum
and Navarretia plieantha (now known as Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha)

[[Page 33035]]

as endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act
(Chapter 1.5 Section 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code
and Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 670.2 ). The
California Fish and Game Commission also has listed Navarretia
pauciflora (now known as Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora) as
threatened. Listing by the State of California requires individuals to
obtain management authorization from CDFG to possess or ``take'' a
listed species. Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants is
prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 Section
1908 and California Endangered Species Act, Chapter 1.5 Section 2080),
State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat modification or
land use changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a
State-listed plant grows on his or her property, State law requires
that the land owner notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of
changing the land use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (California
Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 Section 1913).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public
Resources Code section 21000-21177) requires a full disclosure of the
potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. The public agency
with primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is designated
as the lead agency, and is responsible for conducting a review of the
project and consulting with the other agencies concerned with the
resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA
Guidelines, as amended, requires a finding of significance if a project
has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species eligible for listing as
rare, threatened, or endangered, but not so listed, are given the same
protection as those species that are officially listed with the State
or Federal governments. Once significant effects are identified, the
lead agency has the option to require mitigation for effects through
changes in the project or to decide that overriding considerations make
mitigation infeasible (CEQA section 21002). In the latter case,
projects may be approved that cause significant environmental damage,
such as destruction of endangered species. Protection of listed species
through CEQA, therefore, is dependent upon the discretion of the agency
involved.
Because vernal pools are generally small and scattered, they are
treated as isolated wetlands for regulatory purposes by the Corps under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 addresses the discharge
of fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands
but does not itself protect the plants. The recently revised Nationwide
Permit No. 26 dated December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65874), was established by
the Corps to streamline authorization for the discharge of fill causing
the loss of 1.25 ha (3 ac) of headwater or isolated waters. For project
proposals falling under Nationwide Permit No. 26, the Corps
historically has been reluctant to withhold authorization unless the
project is likely to cause jeopardy to a federally threatened or
endangered species. The section 404 regulations require an applicant to
obtain an individual permit to discharge fill into greater than 1.25 ha
(3 ac) of headwater or isolated wetlands. A project proponent proposing
to discharge fill that would cause the loss of less than one-third acre
of headwater or isolated waters is only required to notify the Corps;
the Corps generally does not require compensatory mitigation in these
cases. Regardless of the size of the discharge of fill, candidate
species within the project area receive no special consideration.
Equally important, upland areas adjacent to vernal pools or other
wetlands are not provided any protection through this process.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence. Three of the four plant species have restricted ranges and
few populations. Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is known from
five sites, N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha from four sites, and
Parvisedum leiocarpum from three sites. These three species occupy
highly specific and vulnerable habitats. The combination of restricted
ranges, few populations, and highly specific and vulnerable habitats
make these plants susceptible to destruction of all, or a significant
part, of any population from random, natural events such as floods or
droughts. Severe erosion threatens one of the three remaining
populations of P. leiocarpum (CNPS 1990b). Low population numbers and
sizes make these three species vulnerable to changes in gene frequency,
inbreeding, and genetic drift. Several historical occurrences of N.
leucocephala pauciflora may have been lost to hybridization with and
genetic dilution (swamping) by larger, adjacent populations of N.
leucocephala plieantha (CDFG 1989b, CNPS 1990a).
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by these species in determining to list these
species as endangered. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action
is to list Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum
leiocarpum as endangered. Endangered status is appropriate for these
four species due to the vulnerability of their restricted habitats to
threats posed by urbanization, agricultural land conversion, drainage,
vernal pool and pond construction, ditch construction, off-highway
vehicle use, road maintenance, or random natural events. Critical
habitat is not designated for these species for reasons discussed
below.

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 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. The Service
finds that, for the four taxa discussed in this rule, designation of
critical habitat is not prudent at this time. 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 such threat to the species; or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
As discussed under factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section of this rule, due to the limited distribution of
Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora,
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum, any
indiscriminate collecting of plants could seriously affect these
species. The

[[Page 33036]]

publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the
Federal Register would make these plants more vulnerable to
overcollection and, therefore, could contribute to the decline of these
species and increase enforcement difficulties. Several populations of
these plants are near roads or in other areas easily accessible by the
public. The listing of these species as endangered also publicizes the
rarity of these plants making them attractive to researchers or
collectors of rare plants. This concern was also addressed under Issue
7 in the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section of this
rule.
Furthermore, critical habitat designation for these four species is
not prudent due to lack of benefit. Critical habitat designation
provides protection only on Federal lands or on private lands when
there is Federal involvement through authorization or funding of, or
participation in, a project or activity. Of the taxa presented herein
for listing, only one population of Lasthenia conjugens is known to
occur on Federal lands. Although the regulatory mechanisms of section
404 of the Clean Water Act provide a Federal nexus to certain
activities in privately owned wetland areas, because the four plant
species occur at very few locations, any federally regulated activity
that would adversely modify critical habitat also would jeopardize the
species. The designation of critical habitat therefore would not
provide additional benefit for these species beyond the protection
afforded by listing. The Service believes that Federal involvement in
the areas where these plants occur can be identified without the
designation of critical habitat. For these reasons, the Service finds
that the designation of critical habitat for these plants is not
prudent at this time.

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 local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure 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.
Federal agency actions or programs that may affect populations of
these plant taxa include mortgage programs administered by the Veterans
Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Federal Home Administration loans), Federal Highway Administration
funding of bridge and road construction, Army Corps of Engineers
authorization of projects affecting wetlands and other waters under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency
registration of pesticides and authorization of pollutant discharges,
and activities on Travis Air Force Base.
Listing Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum
leiocarpum as endangered provides for development of a recovery plan
(or plans) for the taxa. Such a plan would bring together both State
and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The recovery plan
would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate activities and
to cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The plan would
set recovery priorities and describe site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve the conservation of these four plants.
Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Service is more
likely to grant funds to affected States for management actions
promoting the protection, monitoring, and recovery of these species
after a recovery program has been developed.
The Service has not pursued conservation agreements for these four
species. These species occur primarily on privately owned land. Many of
the threats to these species, such as habitat alteration by large-scale
urban development projects and off-highway vehicle use, are not easily
prevented through the development of conservation agreements. Only
three of the total 26 populations comprising the four species receive
some level of protection. One population of Navarretia leucocephala
ssp. plieantha is found within the Bogg's Lake Preserve and managed by
TNC, and a second (intercrossed with N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora)
is located within an ecological reserve managed by the CDFG. One
population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is located on
privately owned land within a conservation easement (CNDDB 1996).
However, even these three protected populations are impacted by
competition from nonnative species, adjacent land management practices,
and feral pigs, respectively (CNDDB 1996).
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
plants. With respect to the four plants from the five counties in
northern California, all prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and
reduce to possession federally listed plant species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the
Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under
Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, damaging, or
destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving
endangered plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species. Requests for copies of the regulations on
listed plants and inquiries regarding them may be addressed to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Endangered Species
Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

[[Page 33037]]

97232-4181 (503/231-6241; FAX 503/231-6243).
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 of listing those activities that would or would
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on
proposed or on-going activities. Activities that are unlikely to
violate section 9 include landscape maintenance, clearing vegetation
for firebreaks, and livestock grazing on privately owned land not under
Federal funding or authorization and not in violation of any State law
or regulation. Only one of the populations of these four species occurs
on Federal lands. Collection, damage, or destruction of the single
population of Lasthenia conjugens located on Travis Air Force Base is
prohibited, although in appropriate cases a Federal endangered species
permit may be issued to allow collection. Removal, cutting, digging up,
damaging, or destroying endangered plants on non-Federal lands would
constitute a violation of section 9 only if conducted in knowing
violation of State law or regulations, including violation of State
criminal trespass law. The Service is unaware at this time of any other
activities affected by this listing. Questions regarding whether
specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 should be
directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's Sacramento Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, 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 Act. 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 is available upon request
from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author: The primary authors of this final rule are Elizabeth Warne
and Kirsten Tarp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation 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. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
---------------------------------- Common name Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Lasthenia conjugens.............. Contra Costa U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... E 619 NA NA
goldfields.

* * * * * * *
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Few-flowered U.S.A. (CA)........ Plemoniaceae....... E 619 NA NA
pauciflora (=Navarretia navarretia.
pauciflora).

* * * * * * *
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. many-flowered U.S.A. (CA)........ Polemoniaceae...... E 619 NA NA
plicantha. navarretia.

* * * * * * *
Parvisedum leiocarpum............ Lake County U.S.A. (CA)........ Crassulaceae....... E 619 NA NA
stonecrop.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 33038]]

Dated: May 30, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-15924 Filed 6-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P