[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49022-49035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24500]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC99
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Threatened Status for Four Plants From the Foothills of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains in California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines threatened
status for Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea), Calyptridium
puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia springvillensis (Springville
clarkia), and Verbena californica (California vervain) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These four plants are
known from serpentine, clay, or granitic soils in the southwestern
foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California. These
plants are variously threatened by one or more of the following:
urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, off-highway vehicle use,
recreational placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and/or
trampling, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. These species are also
vulnerable to extirpations from random events due to small number and
size of populations, and/or small range of the species. A notice of
withdrawal of the proposal to list Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill
onion), Carpenteria californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata
(Greenhorn adobe lily), Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa
lupine), Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia
setiloba (Piute Mountain navarretia) is being published concurrently
with this final rule.
DATES: This rule becomes effective October 14, 1998.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 3310 El
Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Fuller or Dwight Harvey (see
ADDRESSES section) telephone number 916/979-2725; facsimile 916/979-
2128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposed
rule (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea) and
Calyptridium puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws) as endangered, and Clarkia
springvillensis (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica
(California vervain) as threatened on October 4, 1994. Also included in
the proposed rule were Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine)
and Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) as endangered, and
Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria californica
(carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily), and
Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain navarretia) to be listed as
threatened. The Service has determined that the threats to the latter
six taxa are insufficient to warrant listing, and is publishing a
withdrawal notice for these six taxa concurrently with this final rule.
This final rule discusses the final determination to list four species
as threatened.
Robert Hoover (1938) first described Brodiaea pallida based on
specimens collected near Chinese Camp in Tuolumne County. Brodiaea
pallida is an erect, herbaceous perennial plant belonging to the lily
family (Liliaceae). Brodiaea pallida grows from underground bulbs to a
height of 1 to 3 decimeters (dm) (4 to 12 inches (in)), and has long,
narrow, thick, succulent leaves. Several to many rose-pink flowers
appear in an umbrella-like cluster at the top of a leafless stem in
late May to early June. Brodiaea pallida grows in association with, and
can hybridize with, B. elegans ssp. elegans (Skinner and Pavlick 1994).
Brodiaea pallida can be distinguished from B. elegans ssp. elegans by
the corolla being constricted mid-way to form a strongly recurved
waist, the color of the corolla, and the non-pollen bearing stamens
(staminodia) being held close to the stamens. Brodiaea pallida grows in
overflow channels and seeps and springs in clays derived from
serpentine soils. The Service is not listing hybrids of B. pallida and
B. elegans ssp. elegans. The entire range of B. pallida is a 3 to 6
meter (m) (10 to 20 feet (ft)) wide and 0.8 kilometer (km) (0.5 mile
(mi)) long stretch of an intermittent stream channel at an elevation of
385 m (1,260 ft). The entire population of B. pallida is scattered over
an estimated 26 hectares (ha) (65 acres (ac)) (California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1997), all of which is privately owned.
Because of the complex nature of B. pallida reproduction (spreading via
shoots and suckers), the number of individuals in the population is
unknown. Despite purposeful surveys for this species in other nearby
areas, the species has been found only at this
[[Page 49023]]
site. The sole population is threatened by urbanization and inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, however the immediacy of these threats has
remained unchanged for the last 10-12 years. This species is also
vulnerable to extirpation from random events due to the small range of
the species.
Joseph Congdon collected the type specimen of Calyptridium
pulchellum on ``Pea Ridge''' in Mariposa County in 1901. Alice Eastwood
(1902) first described this plant as Spraguea pulchella. Robert Hoover
(1940) revised the genera Spraguea and Calyptridium and renamed this
plant Calyptridium pulchellum based upon vegetative organization and
habitat. Calyptridium pulchellum is a small, compact, rosette forming,
annual herb belonging to the purslane family (Portulacaceae). The
smooth, slender, prostrate stems are 1 to 2 dm (4 to 8 in) long. The
spatula-shaped leaves have smooth surfaces. Rose-colored, four-petaled
flowers appear in loose panicles between May and August. This fibrous
rooted plant grows in small, barren areas on decomposed granitic sands,
between 460 and 1,090 m (1,500 to 3,600 ft) in the annual grasslands
and woodlands in the southwestern foothills of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains. The seven populations in six locations are estimated to
occupy a total of only 6 ha (14 ac) in Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa
counties over a range of about 64 km (40 mi) (CNDDB 1997). Six of the
seven populations occur on private land. Five of these populations are
marginal in quality and contain fewer than 300 plants (Ann
Mendershausen, Mariposa Resource Conservation District, pers. comm.
1997; CNDDB 1997). The sixth population on private land has about 900
plants (CNDDB 1997). The seventh population of C. pulchellum, occurs on
lands administered by the Sierra National Forest and is fenced to
protect it from livestock trampling and grazing (James Boynton and
Joanna Clines Sierra National Forest, in litt., 1993). Calyptridium
pulchellum is threatened with urbanization. Due to the few populations
and low numbers, the species is susceptible to extirpation from random
events.
Frank Vasek (1964) described Clarkia springvillensis based on his
collection along Balch Park Road, the type locality, near Springville.
Clarkia springvillensis is an erect annual herb in the evening primrose
family (Onagraceae). The 1 m (3 ft) tall plant has simple or usually
branched stems. The bright green leaves are 2 to 9 centimeters (cm)
(0.8 to 3.5 in) long and 5 to 20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in)
broad. The lavender-pink flowers appear in May to July and usually have
a dark purplish basal spot. Clarkia springvillensis can be separated
from the co-occurring C. unguiculata by the absence of long hairs on
the calyx and ovary, the purple sepals, and the dark purplish spot at
the base of the petals. Clarkia springvillensis is found on granitic
soils in sunny sites from 360 to 910 m (1,220 to 3,000 ft) in
elevation. Clarkia springvillensis grows mostly on the uphill slope of
roadbanks, on small decomposing granitic domes, and in openings within
the blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland community in the foothills of
the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of Tulare County, where 15
populations occur. Collectively, the populations are estimated to
occupy a total of 61 ha (150 ac) (CNDDB 1997). All but one of the 15
populations are found within about a 24 km (15) mi range, with the
remaining population occurring 26 km (16 mi) to the northwest. One site
is partially protected by the CDFG, one is on Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) land, eight are on U.S. Forest Service land, and five are on
private land. With the variability typical of an annual plant, six
populations of C. springvillensis have ranged from 20 to 200 plants.
Four populations along roadsides have become restricted to a narrow
band just above a zone of herbicide use and just below heavily grazed
terrain. The largest population of this plant occurs on the 1.8 ha (4.5
ac) preserve owned by the CDFG. The status of C. springvillensis is
stable to declining according to the CDFG (CDFG 1995). Clarkia
springvillensis is threatened by urban development, inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, heavy livestock grazing, and roadway maintenance
activities. Due to its few populations and low numbers, C.
springvillensis is vulnerable to extirpation from random events.
Harold A. Moldenke (1942) described Verbena californica from
specimens collected by Robert Hoover from an area north of Keystone in
Tuolumne County. Verbena californica is an erect perennial herb
belonging to the vervain family (Verbenaceae). Verbena californica
grows to 60 cm (23 in) in height and has opposite, bright green,
stalkless (sessile) leaves. White-blue to purple blossoms appear in May
through September. Verbena californica grows in nine populations
between 260 and 335 m (850 to 1,150 ft) in elevation. The populations
are restricted to intermittent and perennial streams within serpentine
areas of the Red Hills of Tuolumne County. The entire range of the
species is about 16 km (10 mi). Within this narrow range, the total
area occupied by the populations is estimated to be 36 ha (90 ac)
(CNDDB 1997). Eight of the nine populations occur in drainages that
feed into Don Pedro Reservoir; five of these eight are on Six Bit Gulch
and its tributaries. The ninth population is on Andrew Creek that feeds
into Tullock Reservoir (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). Four of the nine
populations are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM
lands, although these six sites contain only 15 percent of Verbena
californica plants. The remaining 85 percent of Verbena californica
plants are on private lands. When last surveyed, two populations were
estimated to contain several thousand plants each, four populations
were estimated to contain 200 to 500 plants each, and the remaining
three populations were estimated to contain fewer than 100 plants each
(CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). The two largest populations, at Andrew Creek
and Big Creek, occur entirely or primarily on private lands (CDFG 1993,
CNDDB 1997). Verbena californica is threatened by urbanization,
recreational placer gold mining, off-highway vehicle use (OHV),
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, dumping, and heavy grazing and
trampling. Due to the few populations and low numbers, it is also
vulnerable to extirpation from random events.
Previous Federal Action
Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result
of section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (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 Brodiaea pallida 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 thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named therein.
Brodiaea pallida was included in the July 1, 1975, notice. On June 16,
1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register (41 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-
[[Page 49024]]
51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. Brodiaea pallida
and Calyptridium puchellum were included as endangered 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 more than 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, along with four
other proposals that had expired.
The Service published an updated Notice of Review for plants on
December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Brodiaea pallida,
Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena
californica as category 1 candidates. Category 1 species were those for
which the Service had on file substantial information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.
On November 28, 1983, the Service published in the Federal Register
a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640) in which Brodiaea
pallida and Verbena californica were designated as category 1
candidates for Federal listing. This supplement also changed Clarkia
springvillensis and Calyptridium puchellum to category 2. Category 2
included taxa for which information in the possession of the Service
indicated that a listing proposal was possibly appropriate, but for
which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not
available to support a proposed rule. On February 28, 1996, the Service
published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that
discontinued the designation of category 2 species as candidates.
The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526). The status of these four plants remained unchanged from the
1983 supplement. Another revision of the plant notice was published on
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision, Clarkia
springvillensis was returned to category 1 status. On September 30,
1993, the Service published another notice and the status of the
species remained unchanged (58 FR 51144).
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) of the 1982 amendments 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 Brodiaea pallida
because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted as a petition. On
October 13, 1983, the Service found that the petitioned listing of
these species was warranted, but precluded by other pending listing
actions, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act;
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 1984 through 1993.
On October 4, 1994, the Service published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium
pulchellum, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, and Mimulus shevockii as
endangered and Allium tuolumnense, Clarkia springvillensis, Carpenteria
californica, Fritillaria striata, Navarretia setiloba, and Verbena
californica as threatened. This proposed rule constituted the warranted
finding for Brodiaea pallida.
Based upon information received during public comment periods
subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service now
determines Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia
springvillensis, and Verbena californica to be threatened species. The
proposed listing of Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica,
Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii,
and Navarretia setiloba is being withdrawn by the Service as announced
in a separate Federal Register notice published concurrently with this
final rule.
The processing of this final rule follows the Service's fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 listing priority guidance published in the Federal
Register on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance establishes the
order in which the Service will process rulemakings. The guidance calls
for giving highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1)
and second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of
outstanding proposed listings. Processing critical habitat
determinations is included in Tier 3 of the guidance. This final rule
is a Tier 2 action and is being completed in accordance with the
current listing priority guidance.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the October 4, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 50540) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to development of a final
rule. Appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, County and City
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties
were contacted and requested to provide comments. Newspaper notices
inviting public comment were published in the Bakersfield Californian
and Porterville Recorder on October 10, 1994, and the Fresno Bee and
Tuolumne Union Democrat on October 25, 1994. The comment period closed
on December 5, 1994.
As a result of receiving seven requests for one or more public
hearings, the Service reopened and extended the comment period until
February 13, 1995 (59 FR 67268). The Service held informational
meetings with interested parties about the proposed rule in Fresno on
January 25, 1995, in Visalia on January 26, 1995, and in Bakersfield on
January 27, 1995. On January 31, 1995, the Service conducted a public
hearing in Bakersfield. The Service received three requests to postpone
or delay the public hearing and three additional requests to extend the
comment period beyond February 13, 1995. Responding to these requests,
the Service extended the comment period until June 4, 1995 (60 FR
8342). From April 1995, through April 1997, the Service was under a
congressionally imposed moratorium on final listings. The Service
reopened the comment period on February 4, 1997, (62 FR 5199) and again
on June 30, 1997, (62 FR 35116) to update and clarify information
received during the three prior comment periods.
The Service has reviewed all the comments received during the four
comment periods. General comments received on all ten taxa included in
the proposed rule, and specific comments on the four taxa for which the
Service has determined that listing is appropriate are addressed in
this final rule. Specific comments pertaining to the six taxa being
withdrawn (Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria
californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily),
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine), Mimulus shevockii
(Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain
navarretia)) are addressed in a separate Federal Register notice
published concurrently with this rule.
[[Page 49025]]
The Service received 525 comments (i.e., letters, phone calls,
facsimiles, and oral testimony) from 164 individuals or agencies or
group representatives concerning the proposed rule. Seventy-one
commenters provided opposing comments, 39 commenters provided
supporting comments, and 54 commenters provided neutral comments. Of
the 525 comments, 310 were opposed to the proposed listing, 87
supported the listing, and 128 had no position regarding the proposed
listing. Several commenters provided additional information that, along
with other clarifications, has been incorporated into the
``Background'' or ``Summary of Factors'' sections of this final rule.
Opposing and technical comments have been organized into specific
issues. These issues and the Service's response to each, are summarized
as follows.
Issue 1--Insufficiency of Data
Comment: Several commenters stated that data used in the proposed
rule to list these ten plants was either inaccurate, insufficient,
inconsistent, erroneous, unsubstantiated, unverified, unjustified,
based only on biased opinions in favor of listing the species, not
peer-reviewed, or required additional research.
Service Response: Information used by the Service to list the
species was gathered from a variety of sources, including Federal and
State agencies, local governments, and private individuals, including
species experts and scientists. This information, and additional
information received during public comment periods, including those of
peer reviewers and comments received at public hearings, provide the
foundation for determining the final status of these ten plants. All
information received was carefully evaluated in accordance with the
interagency policy on information standards under the Act, published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271). Five of the seven independent species
experts that reviewed the proposed rule supported the listing of one or
more of the ten plant taxa. Criteria for what information may be
considered are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section. As previously stated, this final rule concerns four
of the ten taxa proposed on October 4, 1994. The other six taxa are
addressed in a separate notice published concurrently with this final
rule.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the information on these
four plants was collected during drought years, and therefore, the data
were biased. Another commenter suggested that the Service extend the
comment period for another two or three growing seasons so more
information could be collected on the species in non-drought years.
Service Response: Professional and amateur botanists have known of
and searched for three of the four plants for decades. Brodiaea
pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, and Verbena californica were all
described prior to 1960 and were included in Philip Munz and David
Keck's, ``A California Flora of California, 1959.'' The first State-
wide inventory of rare plants was assembled by the California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) in 1974. Monitoring efforts on the locations and
habitats of the four plants have been more consistent since this time.
Continuing inventory efforts have not been conducted on all populations
of the four plants in all years over the last twenty years. However,
site visits to locations of populations of these plants have been
undertaken in both drought and non-drought years, as discussed in the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section. Under section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Service is required to make its
determination upon the best available scientific and commercial data.
The Service is neither required, funded, nor authorized to conduct
further surveys for these species, and concludes that the best
available information is sufficient to support the listing of these
species under the Act.
Comment: Several commenters stated that data were, or may have
been, collected by trespass and questioned the legality and
admissibility of the data under those circumstances.
Service Response: Among the information sources used by the Service
is the information from the CNDDB, a part of the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). The data comprising the CNDDB and data at the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office is checked for accuracy, but
whether or not observers obtained written or verbal permission to visit
private land is not investigated. Many of the older observations may
predate the more recent heightened sensitivity of landowners to
individuals searching for rare plants on their property. Neither the
Service nor the CDFG condone trespassing.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did
not collect information from ranchers and that the information to list
the four plants may not be accurate without this information.
Service Response: The Service collected and has used the best
scientific and commercially information available from Federal, State
and local agencies, species experts, ecologists, botanists, and
interested individuals in the preparation of the proposed and final
rules, consistent with section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. A list of all
data sources and information used to formulate the proposed and final
rules are available from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon
request. The Service participated in two informal information exchange
meetings with State and County representatives and private landowning
ranchers in Bakersfield, California, to discuss the importance,
usefulness, and thresholds of useful information during the fourth
comment period and received information from ranchers during all
comment periods. Some of this information pertained to specific or
general locational references and has been incorporated into this final
rule.
Issue 2--Species Are Not Threatened or Threats Are Not Substantiated
Comment: Several commenters stated that some of the species are
more common than indicated in the proposed rule, or some, if not all of
the species are not threatened by one or more factors across the range
of the species. One commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis is
not threatened by urbanization, timber operations, or road maintenance
across its range. Another commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis
is more widespread than is indicated in the proposed rule.
Service Response: The Service has reviewed all the information and
comments from many sources and has determined that logging does not
pose a significant threat to Clarkia springvillensis. Urbanization
poses a threat to C. springvillensis on private lands, but not to those
populations found on public lands. Road maintenance threatens the
species at four of its 15 locations. Additional information regarding
threats to the species are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section of this document. The Service has
determined that each of these four taxa meets the definition of a
threatened species under the Act. A list of all data sources and
information used to formulate the proposed and final rules are
available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon request.
Issue 3--Economic Effects of Listing
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that listing may limit,
curtail, or impinge on the existing uses of private property, or that
listing would result in the loss of management opportunities on private
lands as well as the loss of economic productivity of those lands.
[[Page 49026]]
Service Response: The Act does not restrict the damage or
destruction of listed plants due to otherwise lawful private activities
on private land beyond any level of protection that may be provided
under State law. Listing the four plants as threatened or endangered
will not regulate logging, farming, or ranching operations, including
cattle grazing, on private land. Other activities that do not violate
the taking prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, as well as
prohibited activities, are discussed further under ``Available
Conservation Measures'' section of this rule.
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service should
consider the economic effects of the listing on the local economies and
industries in the counties where the plants occur.
Service Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listing
determination must be based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available about whether a species meets the Acts
definition of a threatened or endangered species. The legislative
history of this provision clearly states 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., 2nd 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 the legislation,'' H.R. Rep. NO. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2nd
Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is precluded from considering
economic impacts, in a final decision on a proposed listing, the
Service does not examine such impacts.
Comment: One commenter stated that listing may result in
``takings'' of private property and therefore the Service should
complete a Takings Implications Assessment.
Service Response: The U.S. Attorney General has issued guidelines
to the Department of the Interior (Department) on the implementation of
Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.'' Under these guidelines, a
special rule applies when an agency within the Department is required
by law to act without exercising its usual discretion. The provisions
in the guidelines relating to non-discretionary actions clearly are
applicable to the determination of endangered or threatened status for
the four plants in this rule.
In this context, an agency's actions might be subject to legal
challenge if it did not consider or act upon economic data. In these
cases, the Attorney General's guidelines state that Takings
Implications Assessments (TIA) will be prepared after, rather than
before, the agency makes the decision upon which its discretion is
restricted. The purpose of TIAs in these special circumstances is to
inform policy makers of areas where unavoidable takings exposures
exist. Such TIAs shall not be considered in the making of
administrative decisions that must, by law, be made without regard to
their economic impact. In enacting the Act, Congress required the
Department to list species based solely upon scientific and commercial
data indicating whether they are in danger of extinction. Thus, by law
and U.S. Attorney guidelines, the Service cannot conduct such TIA's
prior to listing.
Issue 4--Designation of Critical Habitat
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service needed to
designate critical habitat, and had no prudent basis for refusal to do
so.
Service Response: The Service has determined that critical habitat
for these four species is not prudent. Please refer to the ``Critical
Habitat'' section of this rule for a detailed discussion of the
Service's basis for not designating critical habitat at this time.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Service needed to designate
critical habitat to help locate populations and verify data. Another
commenter disagreed with the Service that the designation of critical
habitat and subsequent publication of critical habitat maps would cause
vandalism to the plants.
Service Response: Protection that these species will receive as a
result of listing is discussed under ``Available Conservation
Measures'' portion of this rule. The public has access to general
locational information on all four of these plants through the CDFG's
CNDDB. The Service considers the risk of malicious damage to most of
these plants to be relatively small, especially for the species that
are inconspicuous. Please refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section of
this rule for a detailed discussion of the Service's reasons for not
designating critical habitat at this time.
Issue 5--Recovery Planning
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should not list
these four species without a recovery plan. Another commenter stated
that the lack of a recovery plan hampers a county's ability to provide
adequate protection measures for these species. One commenter stated
that the Service could not prepare a recovery plan without an economic
assessment.
Service Response: The recovery planning process typically occurs
after the species has been listed and provides recovery objectives and
criteria to delist the species. The recovery planning process will
involve species experts, scientists, and interested members of the
public in accordance with interagency policy on recovery plans under
the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). The information and
public education needs for successful recovery of these species are
many and will be incorporated into the recovery plan. Economic
assessments are not part of the recovery planning process; however,
every recovery plan includes an estimate of the costs of all recovery
tasks identified in the plan.
Issue 6--National Environmental Policy Act and Information Availability
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service needed to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental
Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) on this rule.
Service Response: For reasons described in the NEPA section of this
document, the Service has determined that the rules issued pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Act do not require the preparation of an EIS. The
Federal courts have held in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657
f2d. 829 (6th Circuit 1981) that an EIS is not required for listing
under the Act. The court decision noted that preparing an EIS on
listing actions does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.
Comment: Several commenters wanted to personally view the evidence
used by the Service to list these plants, or specifically wanted to
know the names of individuals who conducted site visits or provided
peer review for the proposed rule.
Service Response: A full administrative record of the information
considered in the proposed and final rules for these species is
available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Issue 7--Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the existing regulatory
measures available through State, Federal and local laws, rules and
regulations provide adequate protection for the four species to be
listed in this
[[Page 49027]]
rule. Other commenters stated that the existing regulatory mechanisms
were not sufficient to protect the species included in this rule, and
therefore the listing should go forward to provide the protection
necessary for the continued existence of these species.
Service Response: The Service believes that the existing regulatory
mechanisms provided in the State, local and county regulations are
inadequate to protect these four plants. Please see Factor D of the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' section of this rule.
Issue 8--Grazing
Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing and/or trampling is
good for these species by promoting plant vigor, or creates a better
seedbed. One commenter stated that the Service holds the position that
all grazing is overgrazing. One commenter stated that other
environmental factors (e.g., rainfall) are more of an issue for these
species than grazing.
Service Response: The Service has no evidence to support the
general position that grazing is beneficial or detrimental for these
species. Numerous factors involved in livestock management and grazing
practices, such as season of use, intensity, duration, and stocking
levels, as well as varying climatic conditions, may affect these
species and/or their habitats. No available literature supports the
position that grazing is beneficial to these species. Site specific
observations and local extirpations suggest that heavy grazing may have
impacted some populations of these species. The Service does not hold
that all grazing is overgrazing, but rather that grazing at some
locations has had adverse impacts on the species considered in this
rule. Virtually all the information that the Service received or
located regarding beneficial and adverse livestock grazing effects on
the four taxa is anecdotal. However, repeated observations over time
coupled with knowledge of historical land uses has validity even though
that information was not scientifically collected. That kind of
information was provided for some of the locations for some of the taxa
in this rule. Based upon this information, it appears that some levels
of livestock grazing are compatible with, and may be beneficial to,
some of these species. Competition from alien grasses may pose a threat
to some of these species and grazing, to the extent that it can
alleviate such competition without eliminating or weakening a rare
plant population through direct consumption or trampling, or secondary
effects such as accelerated soil erosion, is compatible with rare
plants on many sites. The listing provisions of the Act provide that
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened species due to
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. The effects of herbivory by any animal, including livestock, is
discussed under Factor C of the ``Disease and Predation'' section of
this rule.
Comment: Several commenters stated that threats associated with
livestock grazing were either false, purely speculative, or lacked any
scientific credence.
Service Response: During the preparation of this rule, the Service
evaluated site specific observations of known plant populations, and
reviewed an extensive body of literature on the impacts of grazing
mammals to plant species. Please refer to Factor C in the ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule for further
discussion on the effects of herbivory, including livestock grazing.
Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing of Clarkia
springvillensis is not a problem or that grazing is necessary for the
survival of the species.
Service Response: Grazing, in combination with other environmental
and human factors, have led to deleterious effects on the habitat of
Clarkia springvillensis. According to observers (Tim Holtsford and
Kimberlie McCue-Harvey, University of Missouri, in litt. 1993),
livestock grazing is damaging eight of the 15 known locations of this
species by direct consumption and trampling. The Service believes that
these effects, together with other threats discussed in ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species'' section support the determination of
threatened status for this species.
Issue 9--Alternative Status
Comment: Several commenters requested that the species considered
in this rule should either not be listed at this time, be listed with
an alternate status, withdrawn, delayed in listing, or retain current
status.
Service Response: Substantive information provided by commenters in
support of arguments for alternative listing status, including delay or
withdrawal, has been incorporated into this final rule and the
accompanying withdrawal notice. The Service believes there is
sufficient information to list these four species, and that the
appropriate determination of the status of each of these species has
been made. The Service has made these determinations based on
consideration of the best available information, in accordance with
section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Please refer to the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section of this rule regarding threats to
Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and
Verbena californica, and to the notice of withdrawal being published
concurrently with this rule [insert FR#] for information regarding
Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, Clarkia springvillensis,
Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii,
and Navarretia setiloba.
Issue 10--Lack of Regulatory Authority to List Plant Species
Comment: One commenter stated the Service lacks jurisdiction to
enact the proposed rule, and that the rule should be withdrawn since
there is no connection between regulation of these plants and a
substantial effect on ``interstate commerce.''
Service Response: The Service maintains that it does have the
authority to list plants such as those included in the proposed rule
pursuant to the Act. Several Federal court cases have confirmed this
authority (see e.g. National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt,
130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed (March 5,
1998)).
Peer Review
Consistent with the interagency policy on peer review published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited the expert opinions
of seven independent and appropriate specialists regarding pertinent
scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy,
population status, and supporting biological and ecological information
for the ten proposed plants. Five of the seven peer reviewers provided
comments. Not all reviewers commented on all of the taxa that were
proposed for listing. One reviewer supported the listing of all species
addressed in this rule, noted that each species is taxonomically
distinct, and commented that the low numbers of individuals in
populations make them especially susceptible to detrimental genetic
phenomena, including inbreeding depression and loss of genetic
variability. This reviewer characterized the population sizes of
Brodiaea pallida and Calyptridium pulchellum as ``perilously low'' and
the populations of Clarkia springvillensis and Verbena californica as
approaching that condition. A second reviewer also supported the
listing of all species addressed in this rule and commented
specifically on Brodiaea pallida,
[[Page 49028]]
Calyptridium pulchellum, and Clarkia springvillensis. The reviewer
noted that the restriction of Brodiaea pallida to a single population
and its ``dangerously low'' population size make it susceptible to
extinction by random events. The same reviewer also commented that
further reductions in populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and
Clarkia springvillensis may place them in danger of extinction by
random events. A third reviewer, who only addressed Calyptridium
pulchellum and Clarkia springvillensis, noted that each is
taxonomically distinct and of such limited range that listing is
warranted. A fourth reviewer provided information on the taxonomic
distinctiveness, ecology, and non-native competitors of Navarretia
setiloba, a species that is being withdrawn, and also emphasized the
importance of conserving the species. The fifth reviewer provided no
specific comments but supported the listing of all four taxa addressed
in this final rule.
Summary of the Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to Brodiaea pallida Hoover (Chinese Camp brodiaea),
Calyptridium puchellum (Eastwood) Hoover (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia
springvillensis Vasek (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica
Moldenke (California vervain) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis,
and Verbena californica are restricted to grassland and woodland
communities of the southwestern foothills of the central Sierra Nevada
Mountains. These four species have been variously impacted and face
future impacts from development projects and other human activities.
Historically, the only known population of Brodiaea pallida
extended up to 0.6 km (1 mi) south of the Red Hills Road; however,
large parts of the population were destroyed by non-permitted
construction around 1982 (Blaine Rogers, Columbia College, in litt.
1990; CNDDB 1997). A subdivision has been proposed for the remainder of
the site (B. Rogers, in litt. 1997; Pat Stone, CNPS, in litt. 1997).
The proposed subdivision divides some of the population into 2 ha (5
ac) parcels and would impact approximately one half of all the known
individual plants (P. Stone, in litt. 1994). No construction activity
has occurred since 1989 at the proposed subdivision that was believed
to threaten B. pallida. No construction activity is currently planned
at the site where the species occurs. Thus, in reassessing the threat
to the single population of Brodiaea pallida and recognizing that the
threat is less imminent than initially thought, the Service has
determined that threatened status is more appropriate for Brodiaea
pallida.
Two populations of Calyptridium puchellum occur on lots in the
midst of a subdivision (Ann Mendershausen, Mariposa County Resource
Conservation District, pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). This
subdivision had a vacancy rate of 23 percent as of March 1997 (David
Deel, Madera County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997) and
additional human impacts may occur to the two populations as the
subdivision fills to 100 percent occupancy. A third population of C.
pulchellum occurs in an area including commercial and residential
zoning adjacent to the location of the population (A. Mendershausen in
litt. 1995; Thomas Kidwell, Madera County Assessors Office, in litt.
1997; D. Deel, in litt. 1997). Although one subdivision was constructed
prior to the proposed rule, none of the proposed subdivisions that were
thought to threaten populations of C. pulchellum have been constructed
since the proposed rule was published in 1994. No construction
activities are planned at the sites where the species occurs. A fourth
population of C. pulchellum occurs on a ranch that is for sale (A.
Mendershausen pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). The populations of
Madera and Mariposa counties, where C. pulchellum occurs on private
lands, are expected to increase by 58 percent and 55 percent,
respectively, between 1996 and 2010 (California Department of Finance
1993, 1996). Thus, the Service has determined that the threats to
populations of Calyptridium puchellum from subdivisions are not as
imminent as first thought and has determined that threatened status is
more appropriate for Calyptridium puchellum.
Two populations of Clarkia springvillensis on the Sequoia National
Forest (CNDDB 1997) and three populations on non-Federal lands are
threatened by road maintenance activities such as grading and roadside
mowing (T. Holtsford, in litt. 1993, T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey,
in litt. 1993, CNDDB 1997). These five populations comprise more than
40 percent of the known acreage of C. springvillensis habitat (CNDDB
1997). Four of these five populations are small and have become
restricted to a narrow band above and/or below the part of the roadbank
that is not graded and above and/or below the heavily grazed terrain
across a fence adjacent to the roadway (CDFG 1990). Mowing usually
occurs when the grass turns golden, just when C. springvillensis begins
to flower (James Shevock, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1985). One of
the five sites is along a county road (County Road M-220) that is
graded infrequently by the Tulare County Public Works Department; the
plants extend to the edge of the road and are graded and buried
periodically (T. Holtsford, 1994 pers. comm.). At this same site, C.
springvillensis appears to be threatened by the Public Works Department
dumping of sand (T. Holtsford, pers. comm. 1994).
A sixth population of Clarkia springvillensis, on private land, is
threatened by development (Andrew Pacheco, Tulare County Planning
Department, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). Zoning in portions of the area
allows one dwelling per ha (2.5 ac) as long as the dwellings are
occupied by family, employees, or farm laborers (A. Pacheco, in litt.
1997). This is in addition to an allowance for one dwelling for the
owner. Further subdivision of parcels requires an amendment to the
general plan. Applications for general plan amendments can be submitted
whenever, and as frequently as, the land owner wishes in Tulare County
(A. Pacheco pers. comm. 1997). Three small populations of C.
springvillensis occur on lands owned by Tulare County. These
populations are subject to incidental impacts associated with frequent
large nature group walks and livestock grazing (CNDDB 1997).
The largest population of Clarkia springvillensis occurs on a 1.8
ha (4.5 ac) preserve owned by CDFG. Prior to acquisition by CDFG, this
property had an access road cut into the preserve, a water well
drilled, and a knoll leveled as a pad for home construction. The type
locality for C. springvillensis,, which covered a 27 ha (67 ac) area,
was extirpated by mobile home development (CNDDB 1997).
Both of the largest populations of Verbena californica are on
private land that currently is being developed, or could be developed
soon. When last surveyed, each of these populations was estimated to
contain several thousand
[[Page 49029]]
plants; the next largest population was estimated to contain fewer than
500 plants (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). In August 1997, the Tuolumne County
Board of Supervisors rescinded the 1994 Environmental Impact Report
(prepared pursuant to CEQA, discussed below) for a planned subdivision
at one of these populations on Andrew Creek. Because of this action, a
1989 vested map dividing the land into 23 parcels is in effect (Robin
Wood, Tuolumne County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997a). Grading
and road building are currently occurring in V. californica habitat on
the site (Rich Hunter, Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center,
pers. comm. 1997; R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997a). This population was
estimated to contain at least 35 to 40 percent of all V. californica
plants, based on CDFG 1993 population sizes. In addition, it is the
only population of V. californica known from the Andrew Creek drainage
and the most westerly population of the species. The second of the two
largest populations of V. californica is on Big Creek (CDFG 1993). The
parcel recently was sold, and the owners are planning to build a house
on a knoll about 300 feet from the creek where V. californica grows.
The parcel is currently zoned so that it could be divided into 15 ha
(37 ac) parcels. The parcel could be further divided if the general
plan was amended; amending can take place three times a year in
Tuolumne County. In addition, the busy, nearby intersection of Old Don
Pedro Road and La Grange Road may be developed, if the general plan is
amended. Other areas of rapid development in the vicinity of V.
californica in Tuolumne County include the intersection of Highways 108
and 120 and the area around Chinese Camp (R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997b).
Recreational placer gold mining has not been allowed since 1993 in
Andrew and Big creeks, but it is still allowed in Poor Man's and Six
Bit gulches (Art Champ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in litt. 1995).
Three populations of Verbena californica on BLM land in Six Bit Gulch
and one on BLM land in an unnamed drainage between Six Bit Gulch and
Big Creek are threatened by recreational placer gold mining (CDFG
1993). Impacts from casual mining continue to occur despite designation
of the entire Red Hills as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by
BLM (Ed Hastey, BLM, in litt. 1992). Verbena californica was only found
on areas of the stream in the Six Bit Gulch area where mining
activities had not changed land contours and habitat (Rogers 1983).
Another impact from recreational mining is trampling by humans, which
negatively affects V. californica and its habitat (Anne Knox, BLM,
pers. comm. 1997a).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not currently known to be a factor for these
four plants, but unrestricted collecting for scientific or
horticultural purposes or excessive visits by individuals interested in
seeing rare plants could result from increased publicity as a result of
this final rule.
C. Disease or Predation
Many Clarkia springvillensis sites are reported to be grazed by
domestic livestock (Kimberlie McCue, Missouri Botanical Garden, in
litt. 1997). Grazing can negatively affect C. springvillensis although
the degree of impact depends on the timing and intensity of grazing.
Grazed plants have the ability to continue producing flowers, but
heavy, repeated, and/or late season grazing can adversely affect the
plants (K. McCue, in litt. 1997). Intensive grazing has been identified
as one of the greatest threats to the species and the ``basic cause of
its rarity'' (J. Shevock in litt. 1985). Heavy livestock grazing and/or
trampling have been reported in three populations of C. springvillensis
in Tulare County (T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey, in litt. 1993;
CNDDB 1997). An additional five occurrences are grazed, but heavy
grazing and/or trampling have not been reported at these sites (CNDDB
1997). Appropriate grazing regimes may benefit C. springvillensis in
some situations by reducing the abundance of alien plants and thereby
lessening competitive pressure on C. springvillensis (K. McCue, in
litt. 1997).
Several populations of Verbena californica are grazed (CNDDB 1997).
Although the effects of grazing on V. californica are not thoroughly
understood, plants in grazed sites are noticeably smaller than those in
ungrazed sites (Mark Skinner, CNPS, pers. comm. 1993; A. Knox, pers.
comm. 1997b). Field observations suggest that V. californica can
tolerate only light grazing before it disappears from occupied habitat
(Rogers 1983). Even if grazing itself does not threaten V. californica,
trampling associated with grazing negatively impacts the plants and
their habitat (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997a, b). One of the two largest
populations of V. californica is subject to trampling (A. Knox, pers.
comm. 1997b) and heavy grazing (CNDDB 1997). When last surveyed, this
population contained several thousand plants on about 13 percent of the
total acreage occupied by V. californica, and was estimated to contain
approximately 40 to 50 percent of all V. californica plants (CDFG 1993;
CNDDB 1997). Recently, a cattle feeder was installed 3 m (10 ft) from
the creek where V. californica grows at this site (P. Stone, pers.
comm. 1997a), which may increase trampling effects. Trampling has also
been identified as a threat at two other populations of V. californica
(CDFG 1993; A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b). At one of these sites, the
trampling was due to trespass grazing (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).
The Service has not received any scientific studies suggesting that
heavy livestock grazing has adverse effects on any of the populations
of the four taxa in this final rule. The Service maintains that,
depending on a wide variety of circumstances, livestock grazing may
have little, or no detectable, adverse effects on plant communities.
The effects on plants from livestock grazing are highly variable and
dependent on many factors, including but not limited to, livestock
class, timing, intensity, and duration of livestock use, and the
species of plants themselves, (Heady 1975). Soil and ambient air
temperatures, along with effective soil moisture from spring rainfall
also influence plant germination, growth, and availability for
livestock consumption (Heady 1975; Huenneke and Mooney 1989). Livestock
grazing occurs where many of the four plant species populations are
located, and the Service is aware of numerous circumstances where,
under a specific set of circumstances, livestock grazing has no or
little adverse effect on any of the four plants. The BLM and Sierra
National Forest constructed livestock exclusion fences around one
population of Verbena californica and one population of Calyptridium
pulchellum to promote and protect the plants and their habitats. There
have been observations of neutral, little, and adverse effects of
livestock grazing on these four taxa (K. McCue, in litt. 1997; CNDDB
1997).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of California Fish and Game Commission has listed
Brodiaea pallida and Clarkia springvillensis as endangered species
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Chapter 1.5
Sec. 2050 et seq. of the CDFG Code and Title 14 California Code of
Regulations 670.2). In September 1994, the California Fish and Game
Commission listed Verbena californica as a threatened species (Chapter
1.5
[[Page 49030]]
Sec. 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14
California Code of Regulations 670.2 ). Listing by the State of
California requires individuals to obtain a memorandum of understanding
with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to possess or
``take'' a listed species. Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants
is prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA), Chapter
10 Sec. 1908 and CESA, Chapter 1.5 Sec. 2080), State law appears to
exempt 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 evidently 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'' (CNPPA,
Chapter 10 Sec. 1913). California Senate Bill 879, passed in 1997 and
effective January 1, 1998, requires individuals to obtain a section
2081(b) permit from CDFG to take a listed species incidental to
otherwise lawful activities, and requires that all impacts be fully
mitigated and all measures be capable of successful implementation.
These new requirements have not been tested and several years will be
required to evaluate their effectiveness in protecting species.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 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 that are eligible
for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but are not so listed
are given the same protection as those species that are officially
listed by the State or Federal governments. Once significant effects
are identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation
for effects through changes in the project or deciding that overriding
considerations make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects
that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of
endangered species, may be approved. Protection of listed species
through CEQA is therefore dependant upon the discretion of the agency
involved. In addition, CEQA guidelines recently have been revised in
ways which, if made final, may weaken protections for threatened,
endangered, and other sensitive species.
Brodiaea pallida and Verbena californica occur in seeps, springs,
and overflow channels, and in intermittent and perennial streams,
respectively. Such features may be treated as waters of the United
States for regulatory purposes by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Clean
Water Act, alone, does not provide adequate protection for Brodiaea
pallida and Verbena californica. For example, Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 26 (33 CFR part 330 Appendix B (26)) was established by the Corps
to facilitate issuance of permits for discharge of fill into wetlands.
Under current regulations, NWPs may be issued for fills up to 1.2 ha
(3.0 ac); fills greater than 1.2 ha require an individual permit (61 FR
65916). For project proposals falling under NWP 26, the Corps seldom
withholds authorization unless a listed threatened or endangered
species' continued existence would be jeopardized by the proposed
action, regardless of the significance of other wetland resources.
Moreover, for fills less than 0.13 ha (0.3 ac) only an after-the-fact
report is required by the Corps. This report must be submitted within
30 days of completion of the work and include only the name, address,
and telephone number of the permittee; location and description of the
work; and, the type and acreage of the loss (61 FR 65917). Populations
of Verbena californica and some parts of the single population of
Brodiaea pallida may occur in wetlands smaller than 0.13 ha (0.3 ac).
Although General Condition 11 of the NWP states that ``no activity is
authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a threatened or endangered species . . . or which is
likely to destroy or modify the critical habitat of such species' (61
FR 65880), the after-the-fact nature of the reporting requirement is
inadequate to ensure the protection of populations that occur in areas
smaller than the 0.13 ha (0.3 ac) threshold. For Brodiaea pallida and
Verbena californica, the reporting requirement may be inadequate to
prevent significant destruction of many individual plants and
associated habitats.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Although the public lands in the Red Hills are closed to OHV use, a
public loop road was constructed through the area in 1995, and OHV use
continues to threaten populations of Verbena californica (P. Stone,
pers. comm. 1997b; Patti Wilson, CNPS, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). The
BLM continues to issue small numbers of citations for shooting and OHV
use in the Red Hills (Steve Martin, BLM, pers. comm. 1997). Trash
dumping has also damaged one population of Verbena californica on BLM
lands in Six Bit Gulch (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).
Small population size increases the susceptibility of a population
to extirpation from random demographic, environmental and/or genetic
events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and Carroll 1994).
Brodiaea pallida exists in only a single population comprising 26 ha
(65 ac). Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for at least five
populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and three populations of Verbena
californica, and populations sizes of 20 to 200 plants are reported for
Clarkia springvillensis (CDFG 1990; CNDDB 1997). Although neither
regular nor systematic inventories have been conducted for all
populations at every location, populations of these plants have been
examined in drought and non-drought years from 1901 for Calyptridium
pulchellum, 1964 for Clarkia cvspringvillensis, and 1942 for Verbena
californica. Demographic events that may put small populations of
Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena
californica at risk involve random fluctuations in survival and
reproduction of individuals (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and
Carroll 1994). These species may also be subject to increased genetic
drift and inbreeding as a consequence of their small population sizes
(Menges 1991; Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Populations that are
continually small in size are particularly susceptible to genetic
changes due to drift. However, drift may also cause genetic changes
with populations that occasionally fluctuate to small sizes (e.g.,
undergo population bottlenecks). Increased homozygosity resulting from
genetic drift and inbreeding may lead to a loss of fitness (ability of
individuals to survive and reproduce) in small populations. In
addition, reduced genetic variation in small populations may make any
species less able to successfully adapt to future environmental changes
(Ellstrand and Elam 1993).
Environmental events that may put small populations at risk include
random or unpredictable fluctuations in the physical environment such
as fire or flooding (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993; Meffe and
Carroll 1994). Human-
[[Page 49031]]
related activities, such as trash dumping or toxic chemical spills, may
be considered random environmental events potentially leading to the
extirpation of small populations. Thus, all four species are threatened
by potential loss of fitness and/or genetic variability as well as by
demographic and environmental events associated with small population
sizes. The combination of few populations, small range, and/or
restricted habitat makes all four species highly susceptible to
extinction or extirpation from a significant portion of their ranges
due to random events, such as flood, drought, disease, or other
occurrences (Shaffer 1981, 1987, Meffe and Carroll 1994). Such events
are not usually a concern until the number of populations or geographic
distributions become severely limited, as is the case with the four
species discussed here. Once the number of populations or the plant
population sizes are reduced, the remnant populations, or portions of
populations, have a higher probability of extinction from random
events.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by these taxa in determining to make this final
rule. Urban development has reduced the range of Brodiaea pallida and
continues to threaten the species. Inadequate regulatory mechanisms,
the existence of only one population, and the small range of the
species also threaten the existence of the species. Urbanization, small
size of populations and small number of populations threaten
Calyptridium puchellum throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, the small range of the species, and heavy
livestock grazing threaten Clarkia springvillensis throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Urbanization, OHV use, recreational
placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and trampling, trash
dumping, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and random extirpation from
small size and number of populations threaten Verbena californica
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines a
threatened species as a species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. An endangered species is any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The Service considered other alternatives to this action, but
based on the foregoing evaluation, the Service finds that all four
species meet the definition of a threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of their range.
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 section 4 of 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 consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed,
upon 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 listed. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
Service regulations also state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist--(i)
information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts is
lacking, or (ii) the biological needs of the species are not
sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area of (50 CFR
424.12(a)(2)). If the Service finds that it is not determinable, the
Service may extend up to one year the designation of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may benefit listed plant
species when actions affecting the species are likely to involve a
Federal agency. Federal involvement is most likely on two situations--
(1) where the species occurs on Federal lands and (2) when a Federal
agency is involved in authorizing or funding actions on non-Federal
lands (for example, through section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
actions involving Federal funding). The designation of critical habitat
may also provide benefit to a species by informing the general public
about the species, and by identifying areas critical to species for
purposes of recovery planning. Critical habitat designation may also
provide information to Federal agencies in the instances when they may
have to consult with the Service pursuant to section 7.
Brodiaea pallida
Brodiaea pallida occurs in a single location on private land (CNDDB
1997). The local County government, present landowner and adjacent
landowners are aware of B. pallida and its location. The California
Commission of Fish and Game held a public hearing regarding the
proposal to list B. pallida as an endangered species and later
designated B. pallida an endangered species pursuant to CESA in 1978.
In 1985, the CDFG offered an acquisition proposal to the landowners to
obtain ownership of the occupied habitat of B. pallida but the
landowners were not willing to sell to CDFG. Additionally, owing to the
Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during, and
after the public hearing to list B. pallida, additional public
recognition and awareness would not result from designation of critical
habitat. The small amount of potential habitat has been surveyed, but
no other B. pallida sites have ever been identified (B. Rogers, in
litt. 1997). No historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997). The Service
does not envision any benefits from designating critical habitat for B.
pallida which is only on private lands. Although a Federal nexus for B.
pallida may exist through the Clean Water Act because the species
occurs in overflow channels, seeps and springs, the designation of
critical habitat for this species would provide little or no benefit to
the protection of this species beyond that provided by listing and any
consultation that may occur in accordance with section 7 of the ESA.
Because the area of occupied habitat is very small (i.e., an area 3 to
6 m (10 to 20 ft) wide and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) long), any adverse
modification of the occupied habitat would likely jeopardize the
continued existence of B. pallida. Critical habitat will not assist the
Service or the general public in the recovery planning efforts because
most interested parties are well informed about the range and
distribution of B. pallida. Furthermore, the species experts that will
be invited to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for B.
pallida will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat.
Because no benefits are to be found, the
[[Page 49032]]
Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical habitat for
B. pallida.
Calyptridium pulchellum
Calyptridium pulchellum is found in seven occurrences; six of these
are on private lands and one is on the Sierra National Forest. No other
sites containing C. pulchellum have been identified, and no historic
locations are known (CNDDB 1997). Given that targeted searches for
potential habitat have been conducted, little likelihood exists of
finding unknown populations within the range of the species. Owing to
the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during,
and after the public hearing to list C. pulchellum, additional public
recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of
critical habitat.
Moreover, there would be no benefit from the designation of
critical habitat for the six locations on private land because C.
pulchellum does not occur in wetlands regulated under the Clean Water
Act and no other Federal actions or authorizations are likely to occur
in its habitat. Even if a Federal nexus were identified, because of the
small number and size of the C. pulchellum occurrences, any activity
that would destroy or modify the habitat of the species would also
likely jeopardize its continued existence. Four of the seven
populations of C. pulchellum are from 1 to 5 sq. m (11 to 53 sq ft) in
area and two are 0.05 ha (0.125 ac) in area and any disturbances
associated with the occupied habitat of any of the six populations are
likely to preclude the recovery of the species. The Service envisions
no benefits to the species will accrue through the section 7
consultation process by virtue of designating critical habitat. The
single population occupying less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) on U.S. Forest
Service land has been fenced to protect it from cattle trampling and
grazing (CNDDB 1997). Critical habitat will not assist the Service or
the general public in the recovery planning efforts because most all
interested parties are well informed about the range and distribution
of C. pulchellum. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited
to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C. pulchellum
will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat.
Therefore, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate for C.
pulchellum due to lack of benefit.
Clarkia springvillensis
Clarkia springvillensis is found in 15 occurrences. Eight of these
occurrences are on U.S. Forest Service lands and one is on BLM lands.
The remainder are on non-Federal lands, including private, County, and
State lands. Owing to the Services' extensive efforts of public
outreach prior to, during, and after the public hearing to list C.
springvillensis, additional public recognition and awareness would not
result from the designation of critical habitat. The only other known
C. springvillensis population was extirpated by mobile home development
in 1983; the species has not been relocated at the site because the
habitat for the species is no longer present (CNDDB 1997). On Federal
lands, modification of occupied habitat is unlikely to occur without
consultation under section 7 of the Act because the presence of C.
springvillensis, and its specific locations, are well known to the
managers of the Sierra National Forest (Dale Pengilly, District Ranger,
Sierra National Forest, in litt. 1996) and to the managers of the BLM
lands where the species occurs (Susan Carter, BLM, in litt. 1995). The
Sierra National Forest has written a species management guide for
populations of C. springvillensis that occur on Federal lands.
Likewise, the Bakersfield BLM office is aware of the single population
of C. springvillensis which occurs on Federal land administered by that
agency. On March 31, 1997, the Service completed formal consultation
and formal conference and issued a 79-page biological opinion on the
Caliente Resource Area Management Plan (CRMP). The CRMP covered many
current and proposed land use actions, including those in Tulare
County, which may affect C. springvillensis.
C. springvillensis does not occur in wetlands regulated under the
Clean Water Act and no other Federal actions are likely to occur in its
habitat on those sites located on non-Federal lands. Designation of
critical habitat on Federal lands would provide no benefit to the
species beyond listing because any action which would destroy or
adversely modify the habitat of the remaining populations of this
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This is
especially the case with such an edaphically (pertaining to soil) and
narrowly restricted species as C. springvillensis because four
populations have less than 300 plants and four others have less than
1,000 plants. Common actions such as logging, road building, and home
construction would easily destroy populations of C. springvillensis and
any adverse modification of C. springvillensis habitat would reduce
appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of C.
springvillensis. Critical habitat will not assist the Service or the
general public in the recovery planning efforts because interested
parties are well informed about the range and distribution of C.
springvillensis. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited
to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C.
springvillensis will not be aided by the Service designating critical
habitat. Therefore, because there is no benefit in designating critical
habitat, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical
habitat for C. springvillensis.
Verbena californica
Verbena californica occurs in nine locations. Four of the locations
are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM lands. Owing to
the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during,
and after the public hearing to list V. californica, additional public
recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of
critical habitat. Additionally, as a part of the outreach prior to the
State of California Fish and Game Commission (SCFGC) listing V.
californica as threatened, the CDFG notified private landowners who had
populations of V. californica in 1992. Furthermore, the SCFGC held a
public hearing to take testimony regarding the proposed designation. As
a consequence of the State hearing, the CDFG was directed to conduct
additional public outreach with landowners within Tuolumne County. The
Tuolumne County Planning Department has detailed maps showing the
southwest trending stream channels and the distribution of V.
californica. Despite the public education and awareness program for V.
californica ongoing since 1992, destruction of parts of one population
occurred in 1997.
Although six of nine known locations are entirely or partially on
BLM lands, BLM lands contain only 15 percent of V. californica plants.
On Federal lands, no modification of occupied habitat is likely to
occur without consultation under section 7 of the Act because the
presence of V. californica, and its specific locations are well known
to the managers of these BLM lands (A. Knox, pers. comm., 1997a). BLM
installed, but has not maintained, fencing to exclude cattle from
riparian areas in the Andrews Creek drainage that support V.
californica (Franklin 1996; Al Franklin, BLM, pers. comm., 1997).
Eighty-five percent of V. californica plants are on private lands.
Despite repeated searches for additional locations of V. californica,
no other sites containing V. californica
[[Page 49033]]
have been identified, and no historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997).
On private lands, a Federal nexus for Verbena californica may occur
through the Clean Water Act because the species is found in a small
series of southwest trending intermittent and perennial serpentintic
stream channels within three small watersheds. Although a Federal nexus
for V. californica may exist through the Clean Water Act, the
designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide little
or no benefit to the protection of this species beyond that provided by
listing and any consultation that may occur in accordance with section
7 of the Act.
Designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide
little benefit to the species beyond listing because any action which
would destroy or adversely modify the habitat of the remaining
populations of this species would also likely jeopardize its continued
existence. The rationale for this overlap is found in the basis of the
edaphic restriction to serpentine substrates, the small size of some
populations, and the small number of plants in many of the populations.
Verbena californica has four populations that contain fewer than 250
individual plants covering an estimated 1.4 ha (4 ac). Any common
actions such as construction of dikes, detention dams, stream
crossings, or bridges could very easily and completely destroy any of
these smaller populations of V. californica. Likewise, any adverse
modification of V. californica habitat would seriously and easily
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of V. californica. The
Service finds that the designation of critical habitat for V.
californica is not prudent due to lack of benefit.
For the reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the
designation of critical habitat for the four plants in this final rule
is not prudent due to lack of benefit. Protection of the habitat of
these species will be addressed through the section 4 recovery process
and the section 7 consultation process. The Service believes that
Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur can be
identified without the designation of critical habitat because the
resource staffs of the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and national forests
already have working knowledge of the locations of occupied habitats of
the species and have undertaken targeted inventories of potential
habitat since the publication of the proposed rule.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as threatened
under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities.
Recognition through listing encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, and
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the State 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, as amended, 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)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs
for listed species. 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.
Listing these four plants would provide for development of a
recovery plan (or plans) for them. Such plans would bring together both
State and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The plans
would establish a framework for agencies, local government, and private
interests to coordinate activities and cooperate with each other in
conservation efforts. The plans would set recovery priorities and
estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also
would describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve
conservation and survival of these four plants. Additionally, pursuant
to section 6 of the Act, the Service would be able to grant funds to
affected States for management actions promoting the protection and
recovery of these species.
Federal activities potentially affecting one or more of the four
plants include mining, grazing authorizations, and issuance of special
use permits and rights-of-ways. Populations of three of the four plants
occur on Federal lands. Approximately half the occurrences of Clarkia
springvillensis and one population of Calyptridium pulchellum occur on
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. One population of Clarkia
springvillensis occurs on lands managed by the BLM. Approximately two-
thirds of the occurrences (representing 15 percent of the plants) of
Verbena californica occur on lands managed by the BLM. These agencies
would be required to consult with the Service if any activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by these two agencies may affect
these species. For example, consultations with the BLM and U.S. Forest
Service may be required on road maintenance, livestock grazing
authorizations, and right-of-way authorizations for projects that
include adjacent or intermixed private land.
Other Federal agencies that may become involved as a result of this
rule include the Federal Highways Administration and the Corps. Because
at least two of these plants exist in or near seeps, springs, stream
beds, perennial streams or drainages, the Corps may become involved
through jurisdiction of section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In
addition, when the Service issues permits for habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) prepared by non-Federal parties, the Service must prepare
an intra-Service section 7 biological opinion on the issuance of the
10(a) permit.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by
50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part,
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to import or export any of the plants, transport them in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity;
sell or offer them for sale in interstate or foreign commerce; or
remove and reduce any of the plants to possession, or maliciously
damage or destroy threatened plants from areas under Federal
jurisdiction. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plant taxa
are exempt from these prohibitions provided that a statement ``Of
Cultivated Origin'' appears on the shipping containers. Certain
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of
[[Page 49034]]
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public
awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing
activities within a species' range. Two of the four species in this
rule are known to occur on U.S. Forest Service lands, and two are known
to occur on BLM lands. The Service believes that, based upon the best
available information, the following actions will not result in a
violation of section 9, provided these activities are carried out in
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements:
(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, wetland
and riparian habitat modification, flood and erosion control,
residential development, recreational trail development, road
construction, hazardous material containment and cleanup activities,
prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, pipelines or utility
line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in
accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the
Service according to section 7 of the Act;
(2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g.,
bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, hiking);
(3) Activities on private lands that do not require Federal
authorization and do not involve Federal funding, such as grazing
management, agricultural conversions, flood and erosion control,
residential development, road construction, and pesticide/herbicide
application;
(4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of
vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.
The Service believes that the following might potentially result in
a violation of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited
to these actions alone:
(1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal lands;
(2) Application of herbicides violating label restrictions;
(3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without
previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct
activities are available for purposes of scientific research and
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Questions
regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of
section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Intentional collection, damage, or destruction on non-Federal lands
may be a violation of State law or regulations or in violation of State
criminal trespass law and therefore a violation of section 9. The Act
and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 provide for the issuance of permits
to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or
threatened plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species. For threatened plants, permits are also
available for botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational
purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
The Service anticipates that few permits would ever be sought or issued
for the four species because they are typically not sought for
cultivation and are uncommon in the wild. Requests for copies of the
regulations on listed plants and inquiries regarding them may be
addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181; telephone 503/231-2063 or FAX 503/231-6243).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An
information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for
endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned
clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information
collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits
and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available upon request
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors. The authors of this final rule are Maria Boroja, Diane
Elam, Ken Fuller, and Dwight Harvey, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section); telephone (916) 979-2125.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Family Status When listed Special
Scientific name Common name rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Brodiaea pallida................... Chinese Camp brodiaea. U.S.A. (CA)........... Liliaceae--Lily....... T 643 NA
[[Page 49035]]
* * * * * * *
Clarkia springvillensis............ Springville clarkia... U.S.A. (CA)........... Onagraceae--Evening T 643 NA
primrose.
* * * * * * *
Calyptridium pulchellum............ Mariposa pussypaws.... U.S.A. (CA)........... Portulacaceae-Purslane T 643 NA
* * * * * * *
Verbena californica................ Red Hills vervain..... U.S.A. (CA)........... Verbenaceae-Vervain... T 643 NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 1, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-24500 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P