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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC96

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status

for Four Plants From Vernal Pools and Mesic Areas in Northern

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered

status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act), for four plants--Lasthenia conjugens (Contra Costa goldfields),

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (few-flowered navarretia),

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha (many-flowered navarretia), and

Parvisedum leiocarpum (Lake County stonecrop). These species grow in

and around the margins of vernal pools and in seasonally wet areas in

northern California. Habitat loss and degradation imperil the continued

existence of these plants. This final rule implements protection

provisions of the Act for listed plants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours at the Sacramento Field

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Ave., Suite 130,

Sacramento, California 95821-6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Warne or Kirsten Tarp (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lasthenia conjugens was described from specimens collected near

Antioch in Contra Costa County, California (Greene 1888). Hall (1914)

included the taxon within Baeria fremontii, however, Ferris (1958)

later recognized this material as B. fremontii var. conjugens. Ornduff

(1966) submerged the genus Baeria under Lasthenia and recognized the

specific rank of L. conjugens.

Lasthenia conjugens is a showy spring annual in the aster family

(Asteraceae) that grows 10 to 30 centimeters (cm) (4 to 12 inches

(in.)) tall and is usually branched. The leaves are opposite, light

green, and usually have a feather-like arrangement with narrow clefts

extending more than halfway toward the stem. The flowers are found in

terminal yellow heads. The phyllaries are one-third to one-half fused;

the achenes are less than 1.5 millimeters (mm) (0.06 in.) long and

always lack a pappus. Lasthenia conjugens flowers from March to June.

The partially fused phyllaries and the lack of a pappus distinguish

this species from L. fremontii and L. burkei, which it otherwise

closely resembles.

Habitat for Lasthenia conjugens consists of vernal pools in open

grassy areas of woodland and valley grassland communities. Vernal pools

are a natural habitat type of the Mediterranean climate region of the

Pacific coast and the Central Valley of California. Covered by shallow

water for extended periods during the cool season but completely dry

for most of the warm season drought, vernal pools hold water long

enough to allow some purely aquatic organisms to grow and reproduce,

but not long enough to permit the development of a typical pond or

marsh ecosystem. The alternation of very wet and very dry conditions

creates an unusual ecological situation that supports a unique biota

(Zedler 1987). Lasthenia conjugens occurs at elevations up to 213 m

(700 feet (ft)) (Ornduff 1966) although one disjunct location, which is

possibly extirpated, occurred at an elevation of 469 m (1540 ft)

(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1996).

Historically, Lasthenia conjugens grew in vernal pool habitats in

seven counties--Alameda, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara, Napa, and Solano counties, California. Currently, the species is

known from a total of 13 populations in Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa,

and Solano counties (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1978, CNDDB

1996). Eight of these populations were discovered after

[[Page 33030]]

publication of the proposed rule and are located within the original

range of the species near Fairfield in Solano County, and near Fremont

in Alameda County (CNDDB 1996, Duncan & Jones 1996). One population of

L. conjugens occurs in Contra Costa County, two in Napa County, one in

Alameda County, and nine in Solano County. Of the nine populations

located in Solano County, eight are clustered near the town of

Fairfield and one is located at Travis Air Force Base. The population

located at Travis Air Force Base is the only population on Federal

land; all other populations are on private lands.

The type specimen for Navarretia pauciflora was collected from a

playa 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi)) north of Lower Lake, Lake

County, California (Mason 1946). Day (1993) revised the treatment of

Navarretia and reduced N. pauciflora to a subspecies of N.

leucocephala. More than a dozen species of Navarretia occur in the

region, including several restricted to vernal pools. Both N.

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha are

restricted to northern ash-flow volcanic vernal pools, a pool type with

a very limited distribution. (CNPS 1994; Todd Keeler-Wolfe, California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm. 1996).

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is a low-growing,

spreading, and much-branched annual herb in the phlox family

(Polemoniaceae). This plant grows to a height of 1 to 4 cm (0.4 to 1.6

in.). The nearly hairless leaves are linear and entire, or parted into

a few linear lobes, and 1 to 2.5 cm (0.4 to 1.0 in.) long. The

inflorescence is a head of 2 to 15 blue or white (fading to blue)

flowers. A few spiny, leaf-like bracts below each head extend out 1.5

to 3 times the radius of the head; bracts within the head are shorter.

The funnel-shaped corollas are 5 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in.) long with

five lobes 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) long. Each corolla lobe has a single

unbranched vein. The stigma has two minute lobes. Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora flowers from May to June.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is found growing in

volcanic ash substrate, clay pan vernal pools in chaparral, grassland,

or mixed coniferous forest in southern Lake and Napa Counties. The

subspecies occurs over a 50 square-kilometer (sq-km) (20 square-mile

(sq-mi)) area at elevations of 450 to 850 m (1,400 to 2,800 ft).

Historically, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora was known from nine sites

in Napa and Lake counties. The subspecies has become extirpated from

six historical localities (CNPS 1990a; Alva Day, California Academy of

Sciences, in litt. 1993). Two new localities were found in 1989. The

five extant populations occur on private lands.

Five subspecies of Navarretia leucocephala are currently recognized

(Day 1993), two of which may hybridize with N. leucocephala ssp.

pauciflora (A. Day, pers. comm. 1993). These two subspecies, N.

leucocephala ssp. bakeri and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha, differ

from N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora in stature, degree of hairiness,

or size, number or lobing of floral parts. In addition, the flower

color in ssp. plieantha differs, being bright blue rather that white or

pale blue as in ssp. pauciflora. As stated in the Service's proposed

policy on the treatment of intercrosses and intercross progeny (61 FR

4710; February 7, 1996), ``intercross progeny'' (hybrids) that are the

result of a cross involving a listed taxon receive protection under the

Act if the progeny more closely resemble the listed parent's taxon.

This policy, if finalized, will primarily apply to a population at Loch

Lomond, which is a product of intercross between ssp. plieantha and

ssp. pauciflora (A. Day, in litt. 1993). If the policy is finalized,

the Loch Lomond population of N. leucocephala will be treated as if it

were listed because both parental taxa will be listed with the

publication of this rule. The intercross policy could also apply to two

historical populations in Sonoma County. Day identified herbaria

specimens of these populations as intermediates between ssp. plieantha

and ssp. bakeri (a non-listed taxon) (A. Day, in litt. 1993). However,

at least one of these populations appears to be no longer extant

(McCarten 1985, CNPS 1987). Should these populations be rediscovered, a

morphological assessment would be required to determine the

applicability of any intercross policy and subsequent protection under

the Act.

Navarretia plieantha was described from the margin of Bogg's Lake

in Lake County, California (Mason 1946). Day reduced the taxon to a

subspecies of N. leucocephala in her revised treatment (Day 1993).

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is distinguished from N.

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora by its more numerous and multi-flowered

heads (20 to 60 flowers versus 2 to 15), and in having three or more

pairs of outer bracts with the bract lobes being forked or three-four

branched from the base. It is distinguished from other Navarretias in

the region by stature, degree of hairiness, or size, number, or lobing

of floral parts.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is a low growing annual herb

in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) that forms a mat 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8

in.) wide. The 3 to 4 cm (1.0 to 1.6 in.) long leaves are linear or

have a few widely spaced linear lobes. The inflorescence is a head

composed of 20 to 50 white or blue flowers. Each head is 1.5 to 2 cm

(0.6 to 0.8 in.) across and is subtended by 3 to 4 leaf-like bracts

that are simple-pinnate or compound-pinnate and extend outward 1 to 2

times the radius of the head. The bracts within the head are shorter.

The funnel-shaped corolla is 5 to 6 mm (0.20 to 0.24 in.) long with

five lobes each 2 mm (0.7 in.) long. The stigma is two-cleft.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha flowers in May and June.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is found in dry meadows,

along the margins of volcanic ash substrate vernal pools and lakes, and

in open, wet ground in forest openings. It occurs over a 1,000 sq-km

(390 sq-mi) area at elevations of 700 to 915 m (2,300 to 3,000 ft).

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha is historically known from eight

locations in Lake and Sonoma counties, California. Two historical

populations in Sonoma County are considered potentially extirpated

(CNDDB 1996) and were possibly hybrids between N. leucocephala ssp.

plieantha and N. leucocephala ssp. bakeri. All five extant populations

are found in Lake County (A. Day, in litt. 1993). Four of the extant

populations are located on private land; one of these is located on The

Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve at Bogg's Lake. The fifth population

is an intercross population (N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N.

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora) that occurs on State land at Loch Lomond.

As discussed above, as an intercross population resulting from two

listed species, this population could receive protection under the Act

if the proposed hybrid policy is finalized. This site is managed as an

ecological reserve by the CDFG.

Parvisedum leiocarpum is a low, erect to spreading annual in the

stonecrop family (Crassulaceae) with reddish stems 3 to 5 cm (1 to 2

in.) tall. The fleshy, oblong leaves are 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 in.)

long and fall off the stem by flowering time. The inflorescence is a

cyme of campanulate (bell-shaped) yellow flowers that are crowded on

curving stems in two rows. The five petals are 3 to 3.5 mm (0.12 to

0.14 in.) long with large, club-shaped, red nectaries. The five carpels

have smooth surfaces. Parvisedum leiocarpum flowers in April and May.

Parvisedum leiocarpum was described from an area 10.4 km (6.5 mi)

north of Lower Lake, Lake County,

[[Page 33031]]

California, as Sedella leiocarpa (Sharsmith 1940). Clausen (1946)

subsequently placed the plant in the genus Parvisedum and gave it the

specific rank of P. leiocarpum. Two similar species occur within the

range of P. leiocarpum. Parvisedum pentandrum differs in having shorter

petals, top-shaped flowers, and carpels with glandular bumps on the

surfaces. Crassula connata differs in having only one to a few, four-

petaled flowers above each leaf base not arranged in definite cymes.

Parvisedum leiocarpum is found on volcanic substrates in areas of

impeded drainage, such as in and along the margins of vernal pools and

depressions in bedrock. The historical range of the species encompasses

six collection localities within a 16 km (10 mi) radius from Siegler

Springs near Lower Lake, Lake County, California (CDFG 1991b).

Elevations of occurrences range from 395 to 790 m (1,300 to 2,600 ft).

Parvisedum leiocarpum has apparently disappeared at three sites within

this area (CDFG 1991b, CNPS 1990b). The extant populations of P.

leiocarpum collectively cover a total area of less than 1.2 hectares

(ha) (3 acres (ac)). All populations occur on private lands.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result

of section 12 of the 1973 Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed

the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on

those plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the

United States. This report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was

presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Lasthenia

conjugens as threatened, and Navarretia pauciflora (now known as N.

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora), Navarretia plieantha (now known as N.

leucocephala ssp. plieantha), and Parvisedum leiocarpum as endangered.

The Service published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register

(40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian

Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2)

(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and

its intention to review the status of the plant taxa named in the

report. The above four taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice.

On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal

Register (42 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant

species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The

list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and

data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in

response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal

Register publication. Navarretia pauciflora and N. plieantha were

included in the June 16, 1976, Federal Register document. General

comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were summarized in

an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909).

The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all

proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was

given to those proposals already more than 2 years old. In the December

10, 1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796), the Service published a

notice of withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, proposal.

The Service published an updated candidate notice of review for

plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included

Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia plieantha, and

Parvisedum leiocarpum as category 1 candidates for Federal listing.

Category 1 candidates were those species for which the Service had on

file sufficient information to support issuance of proposed listing

rules. On November 28, 1983, the Service published a supplement to this

notice of review (48 FR 39526) which changed L. conjugens, N.

pauciflora, N. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum from category 1 to category

2 candidates. Category 2 candidates were those species for which the

Service had information indicating that listing may be warranted but

for which it lacked sufficient information on status and threats to

support issuance of proposed listing rules.

When the plant notice was revised on September 27, 1985 (50 FR

39526), Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia

plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum were included as category 2

candidates. When the plant notice was again revised on February 21,

1990 (55 FR 6184), L. conjugens, N. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum were

elevated to category 1 candidates. Navarretia pauciflora was retained

as a category 2 candidate. Since the publication of that notice, the

Service has received additional information on the status of Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora that supports the listing of this species.

The September 30, 1993, plant notice of review (58 FR 51144) included

all four plant taxa as category 1 candidates. As announced in a notice

published in the February 28, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 7596), the

designation of multiple categories of candidates has been discontinued,

and only former category 1 species are now recognized as candidates for

listing purposes.

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make

certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their

receipt. Section 2(b)(1) further requires that all petitions pending on

October 13, 1982, be treated as having been newly submitted on that

date. This was the case for Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia pauciflora,

Navarretia plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum because the 1975

Smithsonian report had been accepted as a petition. On October 13,

1982, the Service determined, in accordance with section

4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, that the petitioned listing of these

species was warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions;

notification of this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR

2485). Such a finding requires the petition to be recycled, pursuant to

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. The finding was reviewed in October

of 1983 through 1993.

A proposed rule to list Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha,

and Parvisedum leiocarpum as endangered was published on December 19,

1994 (59 FR 65311). The proposal was based on information from the

CNDDB and observations and studies by numerous botanists. The Service

now determines L. conjugens, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, N.

leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and P. leiocarpum to be endangered with

the publication of this rule.

The processing of this final listing rule conforms with the

Service's final listing priority guidance published in the Federal

Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the

order in which the Service will process rulemakings following two

related events: (1) The lifting on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on

final listings imposed on April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6), and (2) the

restoration of significant funding for processing listing actions. The

Service's Sacramento Field Office has confirmed that the status of the

four species in this rule has not changed since publication of the

proposed rule prior to the moratorium on final listings.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the December 19, 1994, proposed rule and associated

notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information that contribute to the development of a final

rule. A 60-day comment period closed on February 19, 1995, and was

extended to April 28, 1995 (the

[[Page 33032]]

moratorium on final listings was imposed on April 10, 1995 (Public Law

104-6)). Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county and city

governments, scientists, and interested parties were contacted and

requested to comment. In accordance with its July 1, 1994, peer review

policy (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited three independent

specialists to review pertinent scientific and commercial data and

assumptions relating to the proposed rule. Two of the three specialists

submitted comments. One specialist found the proposed listing to be

concise and technically accurate. The other specialist commented only

on the discussion and descriptive paragraphs about Navarretia. This

specialist's comments have been incorporated into the ``Background''

section of this rule.

The Service published notices in the Lake County Record-Bee and the

Napa County Register on December 30, 1994, which invited general public

comment. Twenty-two individuals or agencies, including the CDFG, the

Lake County Farm Bureau, and the CNPS, submitted comments. Several

people submitted more than one comment to the Service. Ten commenters

supported, five opposed, and seven were neutral on the proposed action.

In response to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service

received written requests for a public hearing from Michael Delbar,

Executive Director, Lake County Farm Bureau, and Daniel Macon, Director

of Industry Affairs, California Cattlemen's Association. Notice of the

public hearing was published in the Napa Register, Petaluma Argus-

Courier and Santa Rosa Press Democrat on March 20, 1995, and in the

Lake County Record-Bee on March 21, 1995. A public hearing was held at

the Napa Valley Marriott Hotel in Napa on April 6, 1995, from 6 pm. to

8 pm. Eight people presented oral and written testimony.

Written comments and oral statements presented at the public

hearing or received during the comment period are addressed in the

following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into

general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are

discussed below.

Issue 1: Four commenters expressed concern that the protection

afforded listed species by the Act would violate private property

rights, and result in a ``taking'' of property. Two commenters

questioned whether they would be monetarily reimbursed for property

loss if the listed species were found on their land.

Service Response: The Attorney General has issued guidelines to the

Department of the Interior (Department) regarding Taking Implications

Assessments (TIAs). The Attorney General's guidelines state that TIAs

used to analyze the potential for Fifth Amendment taking claims are to

be prepared after, rather than before, an agency makes a restricted

discretionary decision. In enacting the Act, Congress required the

Department to list a species based solely upon scientific and

commercial data. The Service may not withhold a listing decision based

upon economic concerns. Therefore, even though a TIA may be required, a

TIA for a listing action is finalized only after the final

determination whether to list a species is made.

The listing of species as threatened or endangered typically does

not result in the ``taking'' of private property. The determination of

whether ``taking'' has occurred as a result of an agency's action is

made by a court based on the specific facts of that action.

Issue 2: Several commenters questioned the accuracy of the

supporting information. Concern was expressed that many areas may

contain potential habitat for the species and, therefore, the species

may be more widespread than stated in the proposed rule. One commenter

stated that the primary findings for Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

plieantha, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and Parvisedum leiocarpum

were based on only two sources.

Service Response: Specific justification for listing the four plant

species is summarized in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species'' section of this rule. The Service used information obtained

from Federal, State, and local agencies, the CNDDB, professional

botanists, and studies by Niall McCarten (1985), Robert Ornduff (1966),

and Alva Day (1993) that were specifically directed at determining the

distribution or threats to the four plant taxa. The Service also used

information from botanical collections of these plants to prepare the

proposed rule. Destruction and loss of habitat and extirpation of

populations of the four plant taxa from a variety of causes have been

documented. Following publication of the proposed rule, the Service

sought comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, species

experts, and other individuals, including three independent

specialists. All information received during the public comment period

has been incorporated into the final rule.

The taxa in this rule are restricted in their range. More detailed

discussion of the historical and current distribution of these four

plants can be found in the ``Background'' section of this rule. The

Service's two primary sources of information on Navarretia leucocephala

ssp. plieantha, N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and Parvisedum

leiocarpum are compilations of information from a number of

inventories, and, therefore, not limited in scope.

Issue 3: Several commenters stated that livestock trampling was

unsubstantiated and had no or little adverse effect on these four

vernal pool plants.

Service Response: Documented observations of detrimental effects of

livestock trampling on some populations of two of the vernal pool

plants, Lasthenia conjugens and Navarretia leucocephala spp.

pauciflora, exist and are part of the administrative record for this

rule. In addition, two populations of Parvisedum leiocarpum may be

threatened by trampling by livestock (CDFG 1989a). The Service

maintains that livestock trampling, under certain conditions, adversely

affects these species (CDFG 1989a, 1989b, 1991; CNPS 1987, 1990a,

1990b). Livestock trampling is one of a number of impacts adversely

affecting these three vernal pool plants.

Issue 4: Two commenters were concerned about whether the data on

which the rule was based were acquired legally. One of these commenters

asked whether permission was given by landowners to the CDFG, the CNPS,

or any other person to enter private property in order to do the

surveys on which the listing is partially based.

Service Response: An important information source used for this

rule is the CNDDB operated by the Natural Heritage Division of the

CDFG. Data in this system come from a variety of experts, including

local professional botanists, members of CNPS, and botanical

consultants. The Service does not condone entering private land without

landowner permission. Because the database records make no reference to

whether permission was granted to those collecting data, the Service

has no knowledge whether observers obtained landowner permission to

enter private lands. No surveys of these species were conducted or

funded by the Service.

Issue 5: One commenter was concerned about the potential impacts

the listing would have on agricultural operations in Lake County. This

commenter stated that the effects on the economic viability of

agriculture on lands on which the species occur would be severe. This

commenter also wanted to know what impact the listing would have on

grazing on public lands.

[[Page 33033]]

Service Response: Section 4(b)(10)(A) of the Act requires that

listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available. The legislative history of this provision

explains the intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions

are ``based solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological

considerations from affecting such decisions'' (H. R. Rep. No. 97-835,

97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). As further stated in the legislative

history, ``Applying economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species

listing process is applying economics to the determinations made under

section 4 of the Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of

the word ``solely'' in this legislation'' ( H. R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th

Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). Because the Service is precluded from

considering economic impacts in a final listing decision, the Service

has not examined such impacts.

The Service expects this listing to have negligible effect on

grazing on public lands. Except for one location of Lasthenia conjugens

on Federal land (at Travis Air Force Base), all known populations of

these plants are on private land. No known vernal pools or habitat for

these plant species are located on federally owned grazing land in the

counties in which these species occur (P. Bardwell, Bureau of Land

Management, pers. comm. 1996)

Issue 6: The CDFG noted the discrepancies between the locations and

distributions of populations of each species in the proposed rule

versus the information from the CNDDB.

Service Response: In the preparation of both the proposed and final

rules, the Service used information provided by Dr. Alva Day for the

number and locations of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and N.

leucocephala ssp. plieantha. Dr. Day's population information matched

the taxonomic circumscriptions in her revised treatment for Navarretia

(Day 1993), which the Service considers to be the best available

information and most recent treatment. The Service has also

incorporated the most recent information for Lasthenia conjugens into

the rule. Some of this information is not contained in the CNDDB;

therefore, location and distribution figures in this rule will not

exactly match those in the CNDDB.

Issue 7: One commenter requested that the proposed rule be amended

to give complete descriptions of all sites and their watersheds. This

commenter also stated that the delineation of the potential range of

the species on U.S. Geological Survey (1:24,000) quadrangle sheets

would be helpful. Additionally, this commenter stated that listing the

species as endangered will likely increase the threat of overcollection

by rare plant collectors.

Service Response: The Service believes that publication of detailed

site information, such as map locations or site descriptions, may

increase the threat of overcollection by rare plant collectors. Because

the ranges of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, N. leucocephala

ssp. plieantha and Parvisedum leiocarpum are small, the plant

populations might easily be located. Therefore, the Service considers

it imprudent to publish site-specific information.

Issue 8: One commenter stated that information on hydrological

changes at the vernal pool sites during the recent droughts is needed,

because the mesic conditions may have disappeared before the

alterations were made.

Service Response: The Service disagrees that further information on

hydrological changes at the sites because of the recent drought is

needed prior to listing. These plants evolved in a climate where

periodic droughts occur. As discussed under factor A in the ``Summary

of Factors Affecting the Species'' section, the human-caused

alterations to hydrology are the primary threat. Although hydrological

modeling may have some utility for aiding the species' recovery, the

Service does not believe this information is needed to support the

listing justification for the four vernal pool plants in this rule.

Issue 9: The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)

discussed two highways (State Route 175 and State Route 29) that are

adjacent to populations of the proposed plants. The agency stated that

the current maintenance activities along State Route 175 and State

Route 29 are not likely to affect the long-term survival of these

species. Additionally, CALTRANS stated that no major construction

projects were planned for these segments of highway.

Service Response: The Service acknowledges CALTRANS' support of

this listing action, but remains concerned about the potential loss of

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora and Parvisedum leiocarpum

adjacent to State Route 29 and the hybrid population of Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. plieantha X ssp. pauciflora adjacent to State Route

175. As discussed further under factor A in the ``Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species'' section of this rule, the Service believes

highway maintenance activities along State routes 29 and 175 may be a

threat to these species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined that Lasthenia conjugens,

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum should be classified as endangered

species. Procedures found at section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and

regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act were followed. A species may be determined to be

endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors

described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to

Lasthenia conjugens Ornduff (Contra Costa goldfields), Navarretia

leucocephala Benth. ssp. pauciflora (H. Mason) Day (few-flowered

navarretia), Navarretia leucocephala Benth. ssp. plieantha (H. Mason)

Day (many-flowered navarretia), and Parvisedum leiocarpum (H. Sharsm.)

R. T. Clausen (Lake County stonecrop) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of their habitat or range. The primary threats to Lasthenia

conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum are activities

that result in the direct destruction of the plants and their habitats

or hydrologic changes in their vernal pool habitats. Such activities

include urbanization, wetland drainage, vernal pool and pond

construction, industrial development, agricultural land conversion,

ditch construction, off-highway vehicle use, road widening, horseback

riding, and trampling by cattle. Damage or destruction of vernal pool

habitat happens quickly and easily due to the extremely crumbly nature

of the soil and the dependency of the pool upon an intact durapan or

impermeable subsurface soil layer.

Lasthenia conjugens is no longer found in three of the seven

counties in which it historically occurred--Mendocino, Santa Clara, and

Santa Barbara counties. Agricultural land conversion, urbanization, and

associated developments have extirpated populations of this species in

Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Santa Barbara counties (CNDDB

1993, 1996; CNPS 1978). Agricultural land conversion extirpated one

additional population of L. conjugens in Napa County (CNDDB 1993).

Widening and straightening of Ledgewood Creek north of Cordelia Road in

Solano County by the Corps eliminated a large amount of

[[Page 33034]]

habitat and a large number of plants of L. conjugens (Ann Howald, CDFG,

pers. comm. 1993).

The largest known concentration of Lasthenia conjugens populations

occurs in Solano County near the City of Fairfield. The General Plan

for the City of Fairfield indicates that all of these populations are

found in areas that will be included within the Fairfield urban

boundary (Jones & Stokes Assoc. 1992). The implementation of this plan

would result in the conversion of approximately 3912 ha (9,668 ac) of

existing habitat and open space to urban use by 2020 (Jones & Stokes

1992). This would include approximately 1376 ha (3400 ac) within the

Travis/Northeast growth center where the greatest concentrations of L.

conjugens occur. Two proposed residential development projects threaten

the three largest populations of L. conjugens which contain over 70

percent of all individual plants of this species (Lafer and Associates

1994, Holland 1995). One of these populations is also threatened by

landfill construction activities (LSA Associates, Inc. 1992). This

population may also be threatened by a ditch construction project

proposed by the California Department of Water Resources (R. Preston,

in litt. 1995).

Urbanization threatens the largest population of Lasthenia

conjugens in Napa County (CNDDB 1993; Jake Ruygt, CNPS, in litt. 1993).

Off-highway vehicle traffic has adversely impacted this same population

(CNDDB 1993). In Contra Costa County, the primary transportation

corridor, State Route 4, will be relocated to approximately 80 to 100

feet from the only remaining population in the county (Woodward-Clyde

Consultants et al. 1995; J. Gan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.

comm. 1996). Six of the eight newly discovered populations of L.

conjugens in Solano and Alameda counties are imminently threatened by

development projects (Steve Lafer and Associates 1994, CNDDB 1996,

Duncan & Jones 1996).

One population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora has been

adversely affected by drainage, and one population has been adversely

affected by an attempt to create a more permanent water source (CDFG

1989b). One site, Manning Flat in Lake County, has significantly eroded

as a result of excavation of drainage ditches; this erosion has reduced

the population and the habitat (McCarten 1985, CDFG 1989b), CNDDB

1996). This population is also within the right-of-way of State Route

29 (H. Sarasohn, CALTRANS, in litt. 1995), and the Service is concerned

that individual plants may be impacted by highway maintenance. The

intercross population of N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N.

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Loch Lomond is also adjacent to a

highway, State Route 175 (H. Sarasohn, in litt. 1995), where

maintenance activities could result in the loss of plants. Off-highway

vehicle use has damaged several population sites in Lake County (CDFG

1989b, CNDDB 1996). Conversion of land to a rice field adversely

affected another N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora population in Lake

County (CDFG 1989b). Construction of a stock pond for cattle partially

destroyed the population of N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Ely Flat

in Lake County and severely altered the hydrology of its habitat (CDFG

1989b, 1996). Agricultural land conversion threatens this same

population (CDFG 1989b; CNPS 1990a). Attempted drainage of a pool in

Lake County containing N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha has resulted in

the invasion of two competitive weeds, Centaurea solstitialis and

Taeniatherum caput-medusa (CNDDB 1996). Although the intercross

population of N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha x N. leucocephala ssp.

pauciflora at Loch Lomond occurs in an ecological reserve managed by

the CDFG, the site is potentially threatened by timber harvesting

within the watershed. ``Such harvesting could have significant

detrimental effects on the vernal pool and its flora.'' (B. Gibbons,

CDFG, in litt. 1995).

Attempted drainage has altered the hydrology of two of the three

remaining vernal pools containing populations of Parvisedum leiocarpum

(CNPS 1990b). Drainage attempts at one of the sites resulted in severe

erosion and a reduction of habitat and plant numbers (CNPS 1990b).

Maintenance of Highway 29 by CALTRANS also threatens to impact

individuals of this population, which is found within the highway

right-of-way (CNPS 1990b). Discing has occurred at the third population

site (CNDDB 1996). All populations occur on privately owned land next

to major roads. Off-highway vehicle use has occurred at two of the

three P. leiocarpum population sites (CNPS 1990b). Within the range of

P. leiocarpum, habitat continues to be converted to vineyards and

orchards (CDFG 1989a).

Some populations of three of the four species are impacted by

trampling by livestock or rooting by feral pigs. Because they are small

and delicate, Parvisedum leiocarpum plants would likely be severely

damaged if trampled by livestock. Because cattle grazing occurs in the

area surrounding at least one population of P. leiocarpum, trampling

may pose a threat to this population (CNDDB 1996, CDFG 1989a).

Livestock grazing threatens four populations of L. conjugens (CNDDB

1996). The single extant occurrence of L. conjugens in Napa County

occurs in a grazed field. Nutrient enrichment of the vernal pool caused

by cattle has led to algal ``blooms'' and possibly other biotic changes

in the pool that adversely affect the growth of L. conjugens (Robert

Ornduff, University of California, Berkeley, in litt. 1995). Eighty

percent of one population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora in

Napa County was adversely affected by the rooting of feral pigs (John

Hoffnagle, Napa County Land Trust, pers. comm. 1995). Horse grazing

threatens two populations and cattle grazing threatens one population

of N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (CNDDB 1996).

Three of the species, Parvisedum leiocarpum, Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha, occur

in restricted habitats primarily within 2 to 6 miles of Clear Lake in

Lake County. The area surrounding Clear Lake is the most densely

populated area in the county (California State Department of Finance

1992), and is subject to residential development (CDFG 1989a, CDFG

1989b, CNPS 1990a). While the rate of this development is moderate when

compared to other areas of the region, the limited habitat of these

species makes them vulnerable to even small increases in development.

Off-highway vehicle use has resulted and continues to result in the

destruction of plants and habitat of Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

plieantha at four population sites in Lake County. The CDFG has

provided fencing at the Loch Lomond site to prevent off-highway vehicle

entry into the area (CDFG 1991a).

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Due to the limited distribution of Lasthenia

conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum, indiscriminate

collecting of plants could seriously affect these species.

Overutilization is not known to occur at this time.

C. Disease or predation. Disease and predation are not known to be

a threat to these plants.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The State of

California Fish and Game Commission has listed Parvisedum leiocarpum

and Navarretia plieantha (now known as Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

plieantha)

[[Page 33035]]

as endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act

(Chapter 1.5 Section 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code

and Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 670.2 ). The

California Fish and Game Commission also has listed Navarretia

pauciflora (now known as Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora) as

threatened. Listing by the State of California requires individuals to

obtain management authorization from CDFG to possess or ``take'' a

listed species. Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants is

prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 Section

1908 and California Endangered Species Act, Chapter 1.5 Section 2080),

State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat modification or

land use changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a

State-listed plant grows on his or her property, State law requires

that the land owner notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of

changing the land use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (California

Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 Section 1913).

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public

Resources Code section 21000-21177) requires a full disclosure of the

potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. The public agency

with primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is designated

as the lead agency, and is responsible for conducting a review of the

project and consulting with the other agencies concerned with the

resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA

Guidelines, as amended, requires a finding of significance if a project

has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range of a

rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species eligible for listing as

rare, threatened, or endangered, but not so listed, are given the same

protection as those species that are officially listed with the State

or Federal governments. Once significant effects are identified, the

lead agency has the option to require mitigation for effects through

changes in the project or to decide that overriding considerations make

mitigation infeasible (CEQA section 21002). In the latter case,

projects may be approved that cause significant environmental damage,

such as destruction of endangered species. Protection of listed species

through CEQA, therefore, is dependent upon the discretion of the agency

involved.

Because vernal pools are generally small and scattered, they are

treated as isolated wetlands for regulatory purposes by the Corps under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 addresses the discharge

of fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

but does not itself protect the plants. The recently revised Nationwide

Permit No. 26 dated December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65874), was established by

the Corps to streamline authorization for the discharge of fill causing

the loss of 1.25 ha (3 ac) of headwater or isolated waters. For project

proposals falling under Nationwide Permit No. 26, the Corps

historically has been reluctant to withhold authorization unless the

project is likely to cause jeopardy to a federally threatened or

endangered species. The section 404 regulations require an applicant to

obtain an individual permit to discharge fill into greater than 1.25 ha

(3 ac) of headwater or isolated wetlands. A project proponent proposing

to discharge fill that would cause the loss of less than one-third acre

of headwater or isolated waters is only required to notify the Corps;

the Corps generally does not require compensatory mitigation in these

cases. Regardless of the size of the discharge of fill, candidate

species within the project area receive no special consideration.

Equally important, upland areas adjacent to vernal pools or other

wetlands are not provided any protection through this process.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued

existence. Three of the four plant species have restricted ranges and

few populations. Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is known from

five sites, N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha from four sites, and

Parvisedum leiocarpum from three sites. These three species occupy

highly specific and vulnerable habitats. The combination of restricted

ranges, few populations, and highly specific and vulnerable habitats

make these plants susceptible to destruction of all, or a significant

part, of any population from random, natural events such as floods or

droughts. Severe erosion threatens one of the three remaining

populations of P. leiocarpum (CNPS 1990b). Low population numbers and

sizes make these three species vulnerable to changes in gene frequency,

inbreeding, and genetic drift. Several historical occurrences of N.

leucocephala pauciflora may have been lost to hybridization with and

genetic dilution (swamping) by larger, adjacent populations of N.

leucocephala plieantha (CDFG 1989b, CNPS 1990a).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by these species in determining to list these

species as endangered. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action

is to list Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum

leiocarpum as endangered. Endangered status is appropriate for these

four species due to the vulnerability of their restricted habitats to

threats posed by urbanization, agricultural land conversion, drainage,

vernal pool and pond construction, ditch construction, off-highway

vehicle use, road maintenance, or random natural events. Critical

habitat is not designated for these species for reasons discussed

below.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service

finds that, for the four taxa discussed in this rule, designation of

critical habitat is not prudent at this time. Service regulations (50

CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not

prudent when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) the

species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and

identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

degree of such threat to the species; or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

As discussed under factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species'' section of this rule, due to the limited distribution of

Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora,

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum, any

indiscriminate collecting of plants could seriously affect these

species. The

[[Page 33036]]

publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the

Federal Register would make these plants more vulnerable to

overcollection and, therefore, could contribute to the decline of these

species and increase enforcement difficulties. Several populations of

these plants are near roads or in other areas easily accessible by the

public. The listing of these species as endangered also publicizes the

rarity of these plants making them attractive to researchers or

collectors of rare plants. This concern was also addressed under Issue

7 in the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section of this

rule.

Furthermore, critical habitat designation for these four species is

not prudent due to lack of benefit. Critical habitat designation

provides protection only on Federal lands or on private lands when

there is Federal involvement through authorization or funding of, or

participation in, a project or activity. Of the taxa presented herein

for listing, only one population of Lasthenia conjugens is known to

occur on Federal lands. Although the regulatory mechanisms of section

404 of the Clean Water Act provide a Federal nexus to certain

activities in privately owned wetland areas, because the four plant

species occur at very few locations, any federally regulated activity

that would adversely modify critical habitat also would jeopardize the

species. The designation of critical habitat therefore would not

provide additional benefit for these species beyond the protection

afforded by listing. The Service believes that Federal involvement in

the areas where these plants occur can be identified without the

designation of critical habitat. For these reasons, the Service finds

that the designation of critical habitat for these plants is not

prudent at this time.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private

organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery

actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities

involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action

may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Federal agency actions or programs that may affect populations of

these plant taxa include mortgage programs administered by the Veterans

Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(Federal Home Administration loans), Federal Highway Administration

funding of bridge and road construction, Army Corps of Engineers

authorization of projects affecting wetlands and other waters under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency

registration of pesticides and authorization of pollutant discharges,

and activities on Travis Air Force Base.

Listing Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and Parvisedum

leiocarpum as endangered provides for development of a recovery plan

(or plans) for the taxa. Such a plan would bring together both State

and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The recovery plan

would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate activities and

to cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The plan would

set recovery priorities and describe site-specific management actions

necessary to achieve the conservation of these four plants.

Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Service is more

likely to grant funds to affected States for management actions

promoting the protection, monitoring, and recovery of these species

after a recovery program has been developed.

The Service has not pursued conservation agreements for these four

species. These species occur primarily on privately owned land. Many of

the threats to these species, such as habitat alteration by large-scale

urban development projects and off-highway vehicle use, are not easily

prevented through the development of conservation agreements. Only

three of the total 26 populations comprising the four species receive

some level of protection. One population of Navarretia leucocephala

ssp. plieantha is found within the Bogg's Lake Preserve and managed by

TNC, and a second (intercrossed with N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora)

is located within an ecological reserve managed by the CDFG. One

population of Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is located on

privately owned land within a conservation easement (CNDDB 1996).

However, even these three protected populations are impacted by

competition from nonnative species, adjacent land management practices,

and feral pigs, respectively (CNDDB 1996).

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered

plants. With respect to the four plants from the five counties in

northern California, all prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply. These

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in

interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,

sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and

reduce to possession federally listed plant species from areas under

Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the

Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under

Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, damaging, or

destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions

apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of

permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving

endangered plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. Requests for copies of the regulations on

listed plants and inquiries regarding them may be addressed to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Endangered Species

Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

[[Page 33037]]

97232-4181 (503/231-6241; FAX 503/231-6243).

It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify to the maximum extent

practicable at the time of listing those activities that would or would

not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on

proposed or on-going activities. Activities that are unlikely to

violate section 9 include landscape maintenance, clearing vegetation

for firebreaks, and livestock grazing on privately owned land not under

Federal funding or authorization and not in violation of any State law

or regulation. Only one of the populations of these four species occurs

on Federal lands. Collection, damage, or destruction of the single

population of Lasthenia conjugens located on Travis Air Force Base is

prohibited, although in appropriate cases a Federal endangered species

permit may be issued to allow collection. Removal, cutting, digging up,

damaging, or destroying endangered plants on non-Federal lands would

constitute a violation of section 9 only if conducted in knowing

violation of State law or regulations, including violation of State

criminal trespass law. The Service is unaware at this time of any other

activities affected by this listing. Questions regarding whether

specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 should be

directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's Sacramento Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this

determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection

requirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available upon request

from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author: The primary authors of this final rule are Elizabeth Warne

and Kirsten Tarp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in

alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

---------------------------------- Common name Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special

Scientific name habitat rules

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

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

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

goldfields.

* * * * * * *

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

pauciflora (=Navarretia navarretia.

pauciflora).

* * * * * * *

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

plicantha. navarretia.

* * * * * * *

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

stonecrop.

* * * * * * *

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

[[Page 33038]]

Dated: May 30, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97-15924 Filed 6-17-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P