Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Two Insects From the Santa Cruz Mountains of California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC50

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for Two Insects From the Santa Cruz Mountains of

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines

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

amended (Act), for the Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata)

and Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis). These

two insect species are restricted to the Zayante sand hills ecosystem

endemic to inland marine sand deposits in the Santa Cruz Mountains of

Santa Cruz County, California. The species are in danger of extinction

principally because of ongoing and future habitat loss to sand mining

and urban development. This rule implements Federal protection and

recovery provisions afforded by the Act for each of these animals. The

proposal to list the Santa Cruz rain beetle (Pleocoma conjungens

conjungens) as an endangered species is being withdrawn and will appear

in a separate section of this publication.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 1997.

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

by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,

Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz, Assistant Field Supervisor

(see ADDRESSES section, telephone 805/644-1766).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata) and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis) are endemic to the unique

Zayante sand hills ecosystem associated with isolated sandstone

deposits in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Cruz County, California.

The Santa Cruz Mountains are a geologically young range composed of

igneous and metamorphic rocks overlaid by thick layers of sedimentary

material uplifted from the ocean floor and ancient shoreline zone

(Caughman and Ginsberg 1987). These Miocene marine terraces, called the

Santa Margarita formation (Clark 1981; Marangio 1985), persist as

pockets of sandstones and limestones geologically distinct from the

volcanic origins of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Soils that formed from

these sandstone deposits occur in scattered pockets covering

approximately 3,400 hectares (ha) (8,400 acres (ac)), and are called

the Zayante soil series (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1980). Zayante

soils are endemic to Santa Cruz County and occur in three primary

clusters. The largest cluster is in the vicinity of the communities of

Ben Lomond, Felton, Mount Hermon, Olympia, and Scotts Valley. A second

cluster is located in the Bonny Doon area. The third, and smallest,

cluster is found near the community of Corralitos. Zayante soils are

deep, coarse-textured, poorly developed, and well drained (USDA Soil

Conservation Service 1980).

Predominant vegetation of the Santa Cruz Mountains consists of

coast redwood forest (Zinke 1988) and mixed evergreen forest (Sawyer et

al. 1988). However, the coarse, sandy, Zayante soils create a warmer

and drier microclimate that supports a uniquely adapted flora

distinctly different from the surrounding forest and chaparral

communities (Marangio 1985; Davilla 1990). The Zayante soils in the Ben

Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley and Bonny Doon regions harbor a

complex vegetation mosaic dominated by maritime coast range ponderosa

pine forest and northern maritime chaparral (Griffin 1964; Holland

1986). The distributions of northern maritime chaparral and maritime

coast range ponderosa pine forest overlap to form a complex and

intergrading mosaic of communities variously referred to as ``ponderosa

sand parkland,'' ``ponderosa pine sandhills,'' and ``silver-leafed

manzanita mixed chaparral.'' These habitats will be collectively

referred to as ``Zayante sand hills habitat'' or the ``Zayante sand

hills ecosystem.'' The Corralitos cluster of Zayante soils is distant

and does not support similar vegetation. Therefore, that cluster is not

included in the Zayante sand hills ecosystem.

The occurrence of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in this region

represents a disjunct, remnant occurrence of the species in the Santa

Cruz Mountains, reflective of the unique edaphic conditions on Zayante

soils. Here, maritime coast range ponderosa pine forest occurs as open,

park-like stands with low densities of ponderosa pines occasionally

interspersed with knobcone pines (Pinus attenuata) and, at some sites,

the federally endangered Santa Cruz cypress (Cupressus abramsiana). The

presence of knobcone pines and Santa Cruz cypress, which require

periodic fires for reproduction (Vogl et al. 1988), suggests that fire

may play an important role in the maintenance of the Zayante sand hills

habitat mosaic (Griffin 1964; Marangio 1985; Holland 1986).

Northern maritime chaparral on Zayante soils is dominated by the

silver-leafed manzanita (Arctostaphylos silvicola), a candidate for

Federal listing endemic to the region. It may occur as monotypic stands

or be mixed with Ceanothus sp., Adenostoma sp., Eriodictyon sp., and

other shrub species. Knobcone pine may occasionally be present (Morgan

1983; Marangio 1985; Lee 1994).

The Zayante sand hills ecosystem harbors a diversity of rare and

endemic plant species and disjunct populations (Thomas 1961; Griffin

1964; Morgan 1983). In addition to the endemic silver-leafed manzanita

and the disjunct population of ponderosa pine, Zayante soils support

the federally endangered Erysimum teretifolium (Ben Lomond wallflower),

Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana (Ben Lomond spineflower), and

Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii (Scotts Valley spineflower). Because

of the unique flora found there, the Zayante sand hills are considered

to be ``biological islands'' (Marangio 1985).

A unique habitat within the Zayante sand hills ecosystem is sand

parkland characterized by sparsely vegetated, sandstone-dominated

ridges and saddles that support a wide array of annual and perennial

herbs and grasses. Scattered ponderosa pine trees are often present.

Although overall vegetation cover is generally less than 20 percent,

sand parkland supports over 90 specifically adapted plant species

(Morgan 1983; Davilla 1990).

The ranges of the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged

grasshopper are highly restricted within the Santa Cruz Mountains. The

Mount Hermon June beetle is limited to the Zayante sand hills

ecosystem. It is found in sand parkland and other sandy

[[Page 3617]]

areas within chaparral and ponderosa pine stands. The Zayante band-

winged grasshopper is more narrowly distributed, known only from seven

patches of sand parkland.

The Mount Hermon June beetle was first described by Cazier (1938)

from Mount Hermon, Santa Cruz County, California. The adult male is a

cryptic small scarab beetle with a black head, dark blackish-brown

elytra (thick leathery forewings) clothed with scattered long brown

hair, and a striped body. Elytral vittae (stripes) are broken, often

reduced to discontinuous clumps of scales, but still form identifiable

lines (Cazier 1938; Young 1988). Females are larger, with a black head,

chestnut-colored clypeus (plate on lower part of face) and elytra, and

golden hairs on the head, thorax, and legs (Young 1988). The single

adult female described was 22 by 11 millimeters (mm) (0.87 by 0.43

inches (in.)), while the holotype male was 20 by 9.7 mm (0.79 by 0.39

in.) (Young 1988).

The Mount Hermon June beetle is 1 of 28 species of Polyphylla in

North America north of Mexico, and 1 of 15 species of the diffracta

complex within the genus Polyphylla (Young 1988). The status of P.

barbata as a full species was supported by Cazier (1940) and again by

Young (1988), who recently made several nomenclatural adjustments to

the genus Polyphylla but retained P. barbata. Three other wide-ranging

species of Polyphylla occur in the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts

Valley area--P. crinita, P. nigra, and P. decemlineata. The Mount

Hermon June beetle is distinguished from other species of Polyphylla by

the presence of relatively dense, long, erect hairs scattered randomly

over the elytra and short erect hairs on the pygidium (abdominal

segment) (Young 1988).

Like other Polyphylla species, the Mount Hermon June beetle is

believed to require about 2 to 3 years to mature from an egg through

the adult form. However, the rate of growth of laboratory-reared larvae

suggests that the Mount Hermon June beetle may complete its life cycle

within 1 year (W. Hazeltine, in litt. 1994). Most of the life cycle is

spent in larval stages. The larvae are subterranean and feed on plant

roots. While Polyphylla larvae are generally considered to be grass and

pine root feeders (F. Andrews, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, pers. comm. 1993; A. Evans, Los Angeles Museum of Natural

History, pers. comm. 1993), the Mount Hermon June beetle also may feed

on the roots of monkeyflower, oak, fern, and other plants found in the

Zayante sand hills ecosystem (W. Hazeltine, in litt. 1993).

During summer, Mount Hermon June beetles emerge as imagos (adult

forms) to reproduce. Males are strong fliers, emerging from their

burrows to fly low to the ground in search of females (W. Hazeltine, in

litt. 1994). Females are thought to be fossorial, remaining just below

the surface in burrows. Females may not fly due to their large body

size (A. Evans, pers. comm. 1993; A. Hardy, California Department of

Food and Agriculture, pers. comm. 1993). Like other Polyphylla species,

males are believed to locate females by tracking female pheromone

signals (Fowler and Whitford 1981; Hazeltine 1993); such a mechanism

would ensure reproductive success within the limited time period for

mating (Lilly and Shorthouse 1971). The flight season generally extends

from mid-June to late July. The flight time of males appears restricted

to evening, being observed only between 8:45 and 9:30 pm; flights may

occur later during the latter part of the flight season (Hazeltine

1993).

The small mouthparts and limited flight period of Mount Hermon June

beetles suggest that adults of this species do not feed (W. Hazeltine,

in litt. 1993). Adults of the related Polyphylla decemlineata are known

to feed on the leaves of trees (Johnson 1954). At the end of the flight

period each evening, males burrow back into the soil, emerging

repeatedly on subsequent evenings to search for mates until their

nutrient reserves expire (Hazeltine 1993). Females are believed to lay

eggs at the bottom of their burrows and die a short time later. The

life cycle continues as newly hatched larvae tunnel from the burrow in

search of roots.

Habitat of the Mount Hermon June beetle is described as ponderosa

pine-chaparral habitat with sandy soil and open, sparsely vegetated

areas (Hazeltine 1993; W. Hazeltine, pers. comm. 1994; J. Hoekstra,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs. 1994). Mount Hermon June

beetles also may occur in more vegetated areas of chaparral (D.

Russell, Miami University, Ohio, pers. comm. 1994). Common vegetation

found in these open areas includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),

monkeyflower (Diplacus sp.; Mimulus sp.), grasses, and small annual

forbs (J. Hoekstra, pers. obs. 1994). While not always present, silver-

leafed manzanita seems to be a good indicator of suitable habitat

(Hazeltine 1993; J. Hoekstra, pers. obs. 1994) All of these

descriptions are consistent with those of Zayante sand hills habitat.

Most Polyphylla species have narrow distributions. Of 28 North

American species, 20 have restricted ranges; 15 of these are endemic to

isolated sand deposits (Young 1988). The restricted distributions of

these species are likely due to various factors including substrate and

food preferences, edaphic tolerances, and the low mobility of fossorial

larvae and females. Most Polyphylla species seem to prefer sand and

grass or sand, grass, and conifer associations similar to those found

in the Zayante sand hills ecosystem (Borror et al. 1976; Young 1988; A.

Hardy, pers. comm. 1993).

The range of the Mount Hermon June beetle is restricted to the

Zayante sand hills habitat of the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley

area. Historically, specimens were known only from ``sandhills'' at the

type locality of Mount Hermon in Santa Cruz County, California (Cazier

1938, 1940; Young 1988). A single historic specimen collected in 1968

and labeled only ``Santa Cruz'' has been reported (S. McCabe,

California Native Plant Society, in litt. 1991). This specimen was not

helpful in the Service's range analysis because of its non-specific

location label.

Between 1989 and 1994, Mount Hermon June beetles were collected at

28 of 43 sites surveyed. Records include results of a regional survey

and incidental collections (S. McCabe 1991; Hazeltine 1993; W.

Hazeltine, pers. comm. 1994; D. Russell, pers. comm. 1994). Twenty six

of the 28 collection locations were on mapped Zayante soils in the

primary cluster of the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley area. The

other two collection records were within the same area, in proximity to

mapped Zayante soils (Hoekstra 1994). All sites were similarly

characterized by sparsely vegetated sandy substrate with silver-leafed

manzanita or ponderosa pine (Hazeltine 1993; J. Hoekstra, pers. obs.

1994). Mount Hermon June beetles were not found in surveys of suitable

Zayante sand hills habitat outside the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts

Valley area; nor were they found at locations with habitat not

characteristic of the Zayante sand hills ecosystem (Hoekstra 1994).

Over 40 percent of Zayante sand hills habitat is estimated to have

been lost to, or altered by, human activities including--sand mining,

urban development, recreational activities, and agriculture.

Historically, Zayante sand hills habitat was estimated to have covered

2533 ha (6265 ac) (Lee 1994). Currently, 1459 ha (3608 ac) remain in a

natural state (Lee 1994). Portions of

[[Page 3618]]

the Zayante sand hills ecosystem are protected under public ownership

in only three locations--the Quail Hollow Ranch, owned by the County of

Santa Cruz; Bonny Doon Ecological Preserve, managed by the California

Department of Fish and Game; and Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park

(Marangio 1985; Lee 1994). However, the Mount Hermon June beetle is not

known to occur in either the Bonny Doon Ecological Preserve or Henry

Cowell Redwoods State Park. The majority of Zayante sand hills habitat

is on privately owned properties and is susceptible to continued sand

mining and urban development. No Federal land is located in the region.

The Zayante band-winged grasshopper was first described from a sand

parkland area near Mount Hermon in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Cruz

County, California (Rentz and Weissman 1984). The body and forewings

are pale gray to light brown with dark crossbands on the forewings. The

basal area of the hindwings is pale yellow with a faint thin band. The

hind tibiae (lower legs) are blue-gray and the eye is banded. It is one

of the smallest species in the genus. Males range in length from 13.7

to 17.2 mm (0.54 to 0.68 in.); females are larger, ranging in length

from 19.7 to 21.6 mm (0.78 to 0.85 in.) (Otte 1984; Rentz and Weissman

1984).

The Zayante band-winged grasshopper is 1 of 56 species in the genus

Trimerotropis (Rentz and Weissman 1984). This species is similar in

appearance to Trimerotropis occulans and Trimerotropis koebelei;

neither of these species is known from the Zayante sand hills region

(Otte 1984; Rentz and Weissman 1984). Trimerotropis thalassica and

Trimerotropis pallidipennis pallidipennis have been caught nearby but

are not considered sympatric (Rentz and Weissman 1984).

The flight season of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper extends

from late May through August with peak activity during July and August

(White 1993; R. Morgan, in litt. 1994). Specimens have been collected

as late as November 1 (White 1993). When flushed, individuals generally

fly 1 to 2 meters (m) (3 to 7 feet (ft)), stridulating (producing a

buzzing sound) in flight (Rentz and Weissman 1984). Band-winged

grasshoppers often alight on bare ground, and are conspicuous in flight

because of the color of the hind wings and the crackling sound made by

the wings (Borror et al. 1976). No additional information on the life

cycle of this species is available.

Habitat of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper was originally

described as ``sandy substrate sparsely covered with Lotus and grasses

at the base of pines'' (Rentz and Weissman 1984). Subsequent reports

describe habitat as open sandy areas with sparse, low annual and

perennial herbs on high ridges with sparse ponderosa pine. Such

descriptions are consistent with those of sand parkland. Surveys also

report that the Zayante band-winged grasshopper co-occurs with Erysimum

teretifolium (Ben Lomond wallflower), a federally endangered plant

(White 1993; R. Morgan, in litt. 1994). The significance of such an

association is unknown.

The Zayante band-winged grasshopper is narrowly restricted to sand

parkland habitat found on ridges and hills within the Zayante sand

hills ecosystem. The species was described from specimens collected in

1977 on sparsely vegetated sandy soil above the Olympia sand quarry.

Other historic specimens were labeled only ``Santa Cruz Mts., no

date''; ``Alma, 1928''; ``Felton, 1959''; and ``Santa Cruz, 1941''

(Rentz and Weissman 1984). Because no specific location or habitat

descriptions accompanied the historic specimens, they were not

considered in the assessment of current range and status of the

species. The ``Alma 1928'' record may suggest distributional outliers,

but no subsequent collections have been recorded to substantiate the

current existence of such a population. Furthermore, the town of Alma

currently is inundated by a reservoir, and the cited specimens cannot

be located in the listed depository for verification (W. Hazeltine, in

litt. 1994; D. Weissman, California Academy of Sciences, pers. comm.

1994).

Between 1989 and 1994, Zayante band-winged grasshoppers were found

at 10 of 39 sites sampled during two independent regional surveys

(White 1993; R. Morgan, in litt. 1994). All 10 collection locations

were on Zayante series soils (Hoekstra 1994). The habitat at these

sites was consistently described as a sparsely vegetated sandy

substrate or sand parkland (White 1993; R. Morgan, in litt. 1994). The

association and restriction of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper to

sand parkland was further corroborated by an overlay of collection

locations on maps delineating sand parkland habitat (Marangio 1985; R.

Morgan, in litt. 1994; Lee 1994). All 10 collection locations fell

within 7 discrete areas of sand parkland habitat (Hoekstra 1994).

Over 60 percent of sand parkland is estimated to have been lost to,

or altered by, human activities including sand mining, urban

development, recreation, and agriculture (Marangio and Morgan 1987; R.

Morgan, pers. comm. 1992; Lee 1994). Approximately 200 to 240 ha (500

to 600 ac) of sand parkland existed historically (Marangio and Morgan

1987). By 1986, only 100 ha (250 ac) of sand parkland remained intact

(Marangio and Morgan 1987). By 1992, sand parkland was reportedly

reduced to only 40 ha (100 ac) (R. Morgan, pers. comm. 1992). A more

recent assessment revised that estimate up to 78 ha (193 ac) because of

identification and inclusion of additional lower quality sand parkland

(Lee 1994). Evaluation of sand parkland quality was based upon

vegetation structure and species composition. Only 20 ha (49 ac) of

sand parkland habitat are publicly owned--1.2 ha (3 ac) of high quality

and 2.4 ha (6 ac) low quality habitat are protected within the Quail

Hollow Ranch, owned by the County of Santa Cruz; 8 ha (20 ac) of low

quality sand parkland are protected in the Bonny Doon Ecological

Preserve, managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (Lee

1994); and approximately 8 ha (20 ac) of low quality habitat occur in

Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (S. Steinmetz, Henry Cowell Redwoods

State Park, pers. comm. 1993). The Zayante band-winged grasshopper does

not occur in the Bonny Doon Ecological Preserve or Henry Cowell

Redwoods State Park. The remaining 58 ha (143 ac) of sand parkland are

privately owned and at risk of loss to sand mining and urban

development (D. Hillyard, California Department of Fish and Game, pers.

comm. 1993; Lee 1994).

Previous Federal Action

The Service included the Mount Hermon June beetle as a category 2

candidate species in the January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554) and November 21,

1991 (56 FR 58804) Animal Notices of Review. Category 2 species were

those for which information in the Service's possession indicated that

listing was possibly appropriate, but for which substantive data on

biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support

proposed rules.

On February 11, 1991, the Service was petitioned by Mr. Stephen

McCabe, California Native Plant Society, to emergency list the Mount

Hermon June beetle as an endangered species. The Service made a 90-day

finding on June 10, 1991, that although an emergency situation did not

exist, substantial information had been presented indicating that

listing may be warranted, and announced this decision in the August 19,

1992, Federal Register (57 FR 37513). The Service initiated a status

review of the Mount Hermon June beetle at that time.

[[Page 3619]]

The Service was petitioned on July 16, 1992, by Dr. David Weissman,

California Academy of Sciences, to list the Zayante band-winged

grasshopper as an endangered species. No separate 90-day finding was

published for this species; final finding for the petitioned action was

contained in a proposed rule, which included listing the Zayante band-

winged grasshopper as endangered (59 FR 24112).

The Service learned of the status of, and threats to, the Santa

Cruz rain beetle (Pleocoma conjungens conjungens) during status reviews

of the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

During the status reviews of the three taxa, the Service examined the

available literature and data on life history, ecology, locality

records, and species' ranges. Sources of status and threat information

for the Mount Hermon June beetle, Zayante band-winged grasshopper, and

Santa Cruz rain beetle included reports and plans supplied by

proponents of the listing and reviewing agencies' plans for development

projects within the range of these three species, and reviewing

published and unpublished data from scientists with expertise on these

taxa and their habitat needs.

On May 10, 1994, the Service published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (59 FR 24112) to list the three insects as endangered.

The proposed rule constituted the final finding for the petitioned

actions for the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged

grasshopper, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. The

proposed rule opened a public comment period through July 11, 1994, to

allow submission of new and additional information on the species and

written comments from the public. A public hearing was requested by Dr.

William Hazeltine of Oroville, California on May 30, 1994. A Notice of

Public Hearing and Extension of Public Comment Period was published on

June 29, 1994 (59 FR 33484). This notice extended the public comment

period through August 1, 1994. The public hearing was held on July 18,

1994, in Santa Cruz, California and allowed presentation of both oral

testimony and written comments. A notice reopening the public comment

period through October 31, 1994, was published on September 1, 1994 (59

FR 45254). The comment period was reopened to allow submission of

additional comments and information concerning the proposed rule.

Based upon information received during the cited public comment

periods, the proposed listing of the Santa Cruz rain beetle has been

withdrawn by the Service. A notice withdrawing the proposal is

published in the Federal Register concurrently with this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the May 10, 1994, proposed rule and associated notifications,

all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or

information that might contribute to the development of a final rule.

Appropriate Federal and State agencies, County and local governments,

scientific organizations, and other interested parties were contacted

and requested to comment. The initial 60-day comment period was

extended through August 1, 1994 (59 FR 33484), and reopened from

September 1, 1994, through October 31, 1994, to allow submission of

additional comments (59 FR 45254). Newspaper notices were published in

the Santa Cruz Sentinel on September 22, 1994, and in the San Jose

Mercury News on September 30, 1994, inviting general public comment.

The Service received a written request from Dr. William Hazeltine

of Oroville, California for a public hearing. The public hearing was

held on July 18, 1994, at the Santa Cruz County Government Building in

Santa Cruz, California. Each speaker was provided 5 minutes to present

oral testimony concerning the proposed rule; written comments also were

accepted at the public hearing. Approximately 40 individuals attended

the public hearing; 17 presented statements.

Seventy three comments, including those of 1 Federal agency, 1

State agency, 3 local government officials, and 50 private groups and

individuals, were received during the comment periods and public

hearing. Several people submitted more than one comment to the Service.

Forty one comments supported, 27 expressed concerns, and 5 were neutral

on the proposed action. Several comments contained significant data and

information concerning the biology, ecology, range, and distribution of

the subject species. This information was evaluated and incorporated

into the final determination as appropriate.

Written comments and oral statements presented at the public

hearing and received during the comment periods are addressed in the

following summary. Written and oral comments were given full and equal

consideration. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped into a

number of general issues. These issues and the Service's response to

each are discussed below.

Issue 1: Numerous respondents concluded that listing the three

insect species would have adverse economic and social effects. Several

commenters felt that residential and commercial development would be

stopped or hindered. Other commenters were concerned about effects to

local mining and railroad businesses. Three commenters requested that

the Service consider and analyze possible socioeconomic impacts. A

representative of the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines

(Bureau) offered the Bureau's assistance with such analysis. Another

commenter concluded that the Service failed to include Regulatory

Flexibility Act analysis. Some commenters stated that the listing would

turn public opinion against preservation of endangered species, and

discredit conservation organizations, the Act, and other environmental

organizations. Several commenters charged that the Act was being

subverted by proponents of the listing and the Service for political

purposes, including habitat protection, land use control, and

development restriction. On the other hand, several respondents

asserted that the economic effects of the listing were being

exaggerated by opponents. They argued that individual property and

homeowners would not be significantly affected since most of the known

occurrences were on a small number of large properties. Proponents also

cited the uniqueness of the ecosystem and its flora and fauna as a

reason to list the species.

Service Response: These comments address a diversity of economic,

social, and political issues. However, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act

requires that a listing determination be based solely on the best

scientific and commercial data available. 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 criteria from effecting such decisions'' (H.R.

Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). As further stated in

the legislative history, ``economic considerations have no relevance to

determinations regarding the status of species.'' Because the Service

is specifically precluded from considering economic impacts in a final

determination on a proposed listing, possible economic consequences of

listing the insects were not considered.

Issue 2: One commenter concluded that listing the Mount Hermon June

beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper would usurp local land use

planning authorities.

[[Page 3620]]

Service Response: The Act does not empower the Service or any other

Federal agency with land use planning authorities. Therefore, local

planning responsibilities would remain intact.

Issue 3: One commenter concluded that land owners would be required

to prove a species not to be endangered as a condition of take permits.

Service Response: Section 10 of the Act describes procedures for

permitting exemption from take prohibitions. Such permission may only

be granted if the activity does not preclude the continued existence

and eventual recovery of the listed species. Permit applicants are not

required to demonstrate species' lack of endangerment.

Issue 4: Three commenters concluded that prohibitions against

``take'' of listed species, as defined in the Act, would violate

constitutional prohibitions against take of private property without

compensation. Two commenters requested that the Service conduct a

takings implication analysis.

Service Response: If an action would not harass, harm, kill, or

otherwise ``take'' a listed species, the prohibitions described in

section 9 of the Act are not applicable. If an action would take a

listed species, procedures for permitting exemptions from the Act's

take prohibitions are established in section 10. The Attorney General

of the U.S. 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 indicating

whether or not the species is in danger of extinction. The Service may

not withhold a listing 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.

Issue 5: One commenter concluded that recovery plans require

coerced mitigation.

Service Response: Although recovery plans identify objectives,

strategies, and specific actions necessary for the recovery of a

species, the plans are guidance documents. Implementation of recovery

plans is not mandatory under law.

Issue 6: Two commenters concluded that the Act was not intended for

insects and that the species did not qualify under the definitions of

the Act.

Service Response: The definition of ``fish and wildlife'' in the

Act includes ``any member of the animal kingdom, including without

limitation any mammal, fish, bird * * *, amphibian, reptile, mollusk,

crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate.'' The Phylum Arthropoda

(arthropods) includes insects. Because the Mount Hermon June beetle and

Zayante band-winged grasshopper are recognized as distinct species,

both taxa qualify for listing consideration under the Act.

Issue 7: One commenter questioned the Service's ability to protect

endangered species. Two commenters did not believe that funds would be

available to monitor the species, enforce the Act, or develop a

recovery plan for insect species.

Service Response: Measures by which the Service can protect

endangered species are described in the Available Conservation Measures

section of this document.

Issue 8: One commenter asserted that the use of consultation under

section 7 of the Act was equivalent to ad hoc administration for listed

species, and that it avoided National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

review and taking issues.

Service Response: Consultation processes defined in section 7 of

the Act provide for coordination between the Service and other Federal

agencies to ensure that Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued

existence of listed species. Recovery plan guidance helps ensure that

proposed actions are consistent with and support the recovery goals and

objectives for listed species. The consultation process in no way

exempts Federal agencies from compliance with NEPA or consideration of

taking issues if required for a proposed action.

Issue 9: A number of respondents urged the Service to base any

listing decisions on sound science using expert data and opinions.

Another concluded that the data and analyses used in the proposed rule

did not meet scientific standards of review. Several commenters

requested that the data undergo peer review to evaluate additional

information and to reconcile an expert's disagreement with the

Service's proposed rule. Two commenters requested that the Service

delay a final determination to allow for adequate evaluation and review

of data.

Service Response: To ensure that listing decisions are based on

sound scientific data, principles, and analyses, and in accordance with

Service policies, expert opinions of independent and appropriate

specialists were solicited regarding pertinent data and assumptions

used to make this final determination. All available data and

assumptions concerning the biology and distribution of the species were

provided to the reviewers. Their comments are summarized in the ``Peer

Review'' section of this rule and have been incorporated as

appropriate. As required by the listing regulations promulgated in 50

CFR part 424, the Service has evaluated the available information and

presented the data and assumptions for independent scientific review.

Issue 10: Several respondents were concerned with the credibility

of available data. Individual collectors were criticized by various

commenters for lacking expertise or verifiable records. These

collectors defended their credibility by citing professional

qualifications and acceptance of data within the scientific community.

Other commenters disputed the value of published versus unpublished

data and documents.

Service Response: In making a listing determination, the Service is

obligated to use the best available information. The quality and

reliability of data used were evaluated against the following

criteria--demonstrated experience or credentials of collectors,

consistency with acceptable methodologies, and verifiability of data.

If the quality or reliability of particular data was deemed to be

inadequate, an appropriate explanation is provided. Similar standards

were maintained for evaluation of published and unpublished material.

Issue 11: Three commenters cited unpublished reports that contained

substantial information on the biology and range of the Mount Hermon

June beetle and Santa Cruz rain beetle not included in the proposed

rule. One commenter concluded that the Service ignored the reports and

comments because the data refuted the proposed rule.

Service Response: Pertinent information contained in these reports

has been incorporated into this final determination.

Issue 12: Several commenters felt that the proposed listing was

based on erroneous assumptions and lack of collection. Two commenters

contended that failure to collect specimens did not indicate absence of

the species. Three commenters recommended that more thorough studies be

conducted prior to a final determination.

Service Response: In preparing this final determination, the

Service had available substantial collection data for

[[Page 3621]]

the two species, including data from the petition to list the Mount

Hermon June beetle, incidental collection records of this species, and

the results of a 1993 regional survey. In addition, the Service

reviewed the results of two independent regional surveys for the

Zayante band-winged grasshopper. These data were sufficient to

determine the range and to evaluate the threats to the species. Peer

reviewers concurred that assumptions were reasonable and appropriate.

Issue 13: Numerous commenters concluded that the proposed listing

of the Mount Hermon June beetle was not supported by data and

conclusions contained in survey reports and comments submitted by Dr.

William Hazeltine, who studied the beetle from 1946 to 1952 and again

from 1992 to 1994. These commenters, including Dr. Hazeltine, cited

collections of Mount Hermon June beetles across a larger geographic

range and in different habitat than the Zayante soils and sand parkland

described in the proposed rule.

Service Response: The data contained in Dr. Hazeltine's 1993 survey

report significantly expanded the known range of the Mount Hermon June

beetle with 26 collection records reported from Ben Lomond to Scotts

Valley. Hazeltine's data also showed the beetle to occur in chaparral

habitats as well as sand parkland. However, Service analysis showed

that the distribution of successful collection sites corresponded with

the distribution of Zayante soils on which Zayante sand hills habitats

are found. In addition, habitat on successful collection sites was

described as sparsely vegetated sandy areas among chaparral and

ponderosa pine. Service personnel visited the collection sites with Dr.

Hazeltine and verified the habitats were consistent with descriptions

of Zayante sand hills habitat. Thus, the Service concluded that the

Mount Hermon June beetle is limited to Zayante sand hills habitat in

the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley area. Although this range is

indeed larger than previously described and extends beyond sand

parkland, the Mount Hermon June beetle remains endangered throughout

all or a significant portion of its range to the extent that listing is

appropriate.

Issue 14: Several commenters concluded that the proposal to list

the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper as

endangered species lacked scientific evidence and was not supported by

entomological information.

Service Response: All available data and information concerning the

biology and status of these species was reviewed and evaluated by a

Service entomologist, as well as independent peer reviewers. This

material was considered to be sufficient for making a final

determination on the proposed rule. The assumptions, data, analyses,

and evidence used are presented throughout this document.

Issue 15: Several commenters criticized the proposed rule's

dismissal of outlying specimens as scientifically irresponsible.

Particularly cited were two Zayante band-winged grasshopper specimens

reported from Alma which, according to the commenters, demonstrated the

Zayante band-winged grasshopper had a much larger range and occupied

additional habitats not acknowledged in the proposed rule. One

commenter further asserted the Alma grasshopper specimens were

collected by a reputable collector such that the label should be

considered accurate. The same commenter noted a 1968 Mount Hermon June

beetle specimen from ``Santa Cruz'' was dismissed in the proposed rule,

and cited the existence of appropriate habitat in a location considered

to be Santa Cruz.

Service Response: The Alma grasshopper specimens were collected in

1928 from an unknown specific location or habitat. Although the

collector was reputable, the reliability of this record is questioned

for the following reasons--the location label is non-specific and

unverifiable such that the specimens may have been collected anywhere

within several miles of Alma including the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-

Scotts Valley area; collection attempts have not verified the existence

of Zayante band-winged grasshoppers in areas of this region other than

the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley area; the specimens cannot be

located in the listed depository for verification. The town of Alma is

presently inundated by a reservoir; and the species has been found

exclusively in sand parkland habitat. These specimens were used in the

Service's analysis of the species' current range and after surveying

all remaining sites that may have been potential habitat for this

specimen in the ``Alma area,'' the Service concludes that no evidence

exists that confirms the species may occur in this region other than

currently known location records.

The Mount Hermon June beetle specimen was not helpful in the range

analysis because of a nonspecific location label. The Service agrees

that suitable Zayante sand hills habitat occurs within areas considered

to be ``Santa Cruz,'' as stated on the specimen's label rendering it of

little use in determining other areas to be included in the extensive

surveys.

Issue 16: Many commenters felt population sizes and trends were an

important consideration in evaluating the status of a species, and the

proposed rule failed to demonstrate any historic population decline or

loss. One commenter claimed current abundances of Mount Hermon June

beetle were comparable to those observed 45 years ago, thus, refuting

the proposal to list the species as endangered. Another argued the

Service was trying to list a habitat since an assessment of population

trends did not exist.

Service Response: The only available information on historic

population levels is the number of specimens preserved in collections

and the reports of Dr. William Hazeltine. Dr. Hazeltine reported 20 to

30 males per night could be collected near his house in Mount Hermon in

the years 1946 through 1952. At that same site in 1993, only eight

males were captured at light traps. While this might suggest a decline

in numbers, historic population trends are not one of the five factors

to be considered in determining whether a species is endangered or

threatened. Population trends of insect species are not useful for

determining endangered status because their abundances can fluctuate

substantially from year to year. Furthermore, some insect species, like

the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper, may

be very abundant in localized populations, yet susceptible to

extirpation by a single action or event. Therefore, threats must be

evaluated irrespective of population estimates.

Issue 17: A number of commenters concluded that the proposed rule

did not provide evidence that habitat loss threatened the Mount Hermon

June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper. Two commenters cited

the collection of Mount Hermon June beetles near houses. Other

commenters concluded that the effects of pesticides and vegetation

changes were not sufficiently evidenced. One commenter suggested that

vegetation changes would not affect the Mount Hermon June beetle

because larvae have been observed to feed on a variety of roots.

Service Response: The effects of habitat loss and alteration are

well documented and recognized as the principal factor in declines of

insect species as well as most other taxa (See Pyle 1981 for relevant

bibliographic references). Insects are particularly vulnerable because

of their high degree of evolutionary specialization and subsequent

dependence on specific edaphic conditions, microclimate,

[[Page 3622]]

vegetation, and cohabitants of particular habitats. Indirect evidence

of the effects of habitat loss on the Mount Hermon June beetle and

Zayante band-winged grasshopper is seen in the failure to collect

specimens within mined areas, even when both species were observed on

adjacent undisturbed habitat at the same time. Documented links between

habitat loss and alteration, and the decline or extinction of other

species provide additional evidence of the significance of this threat.

The collection of Mount Hermon June beetles near houses does not refute

the negative effects of habitat loss because the beetles may simply

have been attracted to lights from nearby suitable habitat, or may

occur in remnant patches of undisturbed soil and vegetation.

Populations that do persist among developments remain at risk of

naturally occurring extinction because of potentially low numbers and

isolation from other populations.

The effects of pesticides on insects and other taxa are similarly

recognized and documented. While most pesticide application may not

penetrate the soil and affect fossorial Mount Hermon June beetle larvae

and females, the Zayante band-winged grasshopper is susceptible to

pesticide effects. The current significance of these effects is not

known.

The impact of vegetation changes also is unknown at this time. Some

related species are known to feed on the roots of exotic plant species

and orchard trees. However, no evidence establishes whether Mount

Hermon June beetle larvae will feed on plants not naturally found in

Zayante sand hills ecosystem. Therefore, the Service recognizes

vegetation change as a potential threat of unknown significance.

Habitat loss remains the primary threat to the Mount Hermon June beetle

and Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

Issue 18: One commenter stated that the limited distribution of a

species was not sufficient evidence for making a determination to list

a species.

Service Response: The determination to list a species as endangered

is based upon the evaluation of the current and future threats to the

species from the five factors listed in section 4(a) of the Act. The

range of a species is only considered when determining whether the

species is threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its

range. Species with limited distributions are more susceptible to

extirpation because a given threat would affect a greater proportion of

the species' range.

Issue 19: Two commenters challenged estimates that sand parkland

habitat is limited to about 40.5 ha (100 ac) and requested that the

sand parkland habitat be mapped. Another requested that historic

habitat loss be documented in maps.

Service Response: A description of sand parkland habitat is

provided in the Background section of this rule. The 40 ha (100 ac)

estimates of sand parkland were made during studies delineating the

habitat in the mid-1980s. A more recent study completed in 1994 revised

the estimate upward to 78 ha (193 ac) of sand parkland (Lee 1994). The

Service used the more recent data in this final determination. Maps

showing the distribution and extent of existing sand parkland habitat

are included in a report entitled ``Preservation study: sand hills

biotic communities of Santa Cruz County, California'' (Marangio 1985)

and in a forthcoming report from the California Department of Fish and

Game (Lee 1994). Production of maps documenting historic habitat loss

would be speculative since no records were kept. Furthermore, such

documentation is unnecessary for the listing determination since the

listing factors address only current and projected status and threats.

Discussions and estimates of historic habitat losses are intended only

to provide a historical context to the Zayante sand hills ecosystem.

Issue 20: One commenter concluded that the generic name Polyphylla

was invalid for the Mount Hermon June beetle because Polyphylla did not

conform to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature.

Service Response: Based upon consistent use in historic and recent

taxonomic literature (Cazier 1938, 1940; Young 1967, 1988), Polyphylla

is considered a valid genus. In addition, throughout this literature,

the rank of Polyphylla barbata as a species has been retained such that

a change in the generic label would represent only a nomenclatural

shift.

Issue 21: One commenter suggested that revegetation of sandy areas

coupled with reintroduction of female Mount Hermon June beetles could

remediate any population losses, thus eliminating the need to list the

species. The commenter also concluded that listing of the Zayante band-

winged grasshopper could be precluded by revegetation of areas which

individuals could colonize. Contrary opinions noted that no restoration

efforts of sand parkland have been successful and at least one large

revegetation effort at a quarry has been abandoned.

Service Response: The Service supports the development and

implementation of habitat restoration efforts. However, no successful

demonstrations of restoration of Zayante sand hills habitat are known.

The Service has received depositions from experts stating that the

technical feasibility of such restoration is uncertain. Therefore,

continued existence of the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper cannot be assured through these attempts.

Issue 22: One commenter concluded that collectors did not threaten

the species because there are few collectors and the species' activity

periods would likely discourage all but the most dedicated.

Furthermore, the loss of some male Mount Hermon June beetles was

unlikely to affect the reproductive capacity of populations because

males could mate with several females. Collection was also limited by

permit requirements on public lands and restricted access to private

property.

Service Response: The Service concurs that collection of the

species currently poses little if any threat to the Mount Hermon June

beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

Issue 23: One commenter concluded that the Mount Hermon June beetle

could adapt to altered habitat. As evidence, the commenter cited the

large number of insect species known, and the short life cycles and

life history traits which would enable more rapid evolution and

adaptation.

Service Response: The great diversity of insects is reflective of

extraordinary adaptive speciations and specializations. However, such

evolutionary changes rarely occur at a rate comparable to that of human

environmental alteration. Consequently, neither the Mount Hermon June

beetle nor the Zayante band-winged grasshopper would likely evolve

adaptations with the rapid changes of habitat.

Issue 24: One commenter concluded that the reported 50 percent loss

of sand parkland habitat would only fractionally reduce the population

of the species, citing a ``rule of thumb'' that a 90 percent reduction

in habitat would result in a 50 percent reduction in the number of

species present.

Service Response: The ``rule of thumb,'' publicized by E.O. Wilson

and Peter Raven, noted proponents of conservation of biological

diversity, refers to species loss, not population loss. If the Zayante

sand hills habitat were to be reduced to 10 percent of its original

extent, one half of all the species found there would be expected to go

extinct (Wilson 1992). Which species would be lost cannot be predicted.

Because this logarithmic relationship predicts extinction of some

[[Page 3623]]

species following even partial habitat loss, it supports, rather than

refutes, the Service's determination that the Mount Hermon June beetle

and Zayante band-winged grasshopper are threatened with extinction.

Issue 25: Several respondents stated that the Service should

designate critical habitat since the habitat of the species is known

and because habitat loss is the primary threat. Others concluded that

the Service did not designate critical habitat to avoid review of the

proposed listing under NEPA.

Service Response: Although the habitats and ranges of the species

are known and described in this rule, designation of critical habitat

as defined in the Act was determined to be not prudent at this time

because no benefit to the species would result. For reasons discussed

in the NEPA section of this document, rules issued pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act do not require preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The courts 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 decision noted that EISs on listing actions do not

further the goals of NEPA or the Act. Thus, this listing action is

exempted from NEPA review, regardless of critical habitat designation.

Issue 26: One commenter suggested that the species be listed as

threatened to allow greater regulatory flexibility and the

implementation of special rules under section 4(d) of the Act.

Service Response: Based upon evaluation of the status and threats

to the species, the Service has determined that the Mount Hermon June

beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper are in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges and therefore

qualify for endangered status. Listing the species as threatened to

provide for regulatory flexibility would ignore requirements of the Act

to base determinations solely on the best scientific and commercial

data.

Issue 27: One commenter suggested that the species could be

exempted from protection under the Endangered Species Act if they were

shown to be pest species.

Service Response: While some related species are known to be

agricultural pests, no evidence exists that indicates either the Mount

Hermon June beetle or the Zayante band-winged grasshopper are pest

species. The Zayante sand hills habitat does not support significant

agricultural crops on which either species feed. In addition, the two

species are not considered as pests in backyard gardens.

Issue 28: One commenter asserted that existing parks were

sufficient to guarantee the continued existence of the insects. Two

others cited a recent stipulation agreement between a private quarry,

the County of Santa Cruz, and local conservation groups, which would

provide for the preservation of Zayante sand hills habitat. One

commenter noted, though, that the preservation of the habitat is

contingent upon the $3.5 million acquisition of the South Ridge parcel,

and that funds have not yet been committed.

Service Response: The Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper are known to occur in only one of the three publicly

owned properties in the region. Although the Quail Hollow Ranch affords

protection to Zayante sand hills habitat, the park does not have

specific mandates to manage for these species, and protection from

adverse impacts of habitat degradation from illegal activities is not

assured. Both species also occur within the areas to be preserved under

the cited stipulation. However, preservation of these populations is

uncertain pending acquisition of the South Ridge property.

Issue 29: Several commenters concluded that State and local

legislation and regulations, such as the mitigation requirements of the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provide sufficient

protection for the two insect species. Commenters cited revegetation

efforts at local quarries, the above-mentioned stipulation agreement,

and protection of sand parkland habitat in a development project by the

City of Scotts Valley as examples of successful protection. Contrary

views were expressed by commenters citing past failures of city

governments to enforce protection of rare species, and the abandonment

of revegetation plans at a sand quarry.

Service Response: While existing legislation and regulations may

require mitigation or other compensation for impacts to sensitive or

rare species, they do not ensure the continued existence of the Mount

Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper. For example,

CEQA provides for ``Statements of Overriding Consideration'' which

allow projects to proceed despite unmitigated adverse impacts.

Issue 30: Three commenters requested that all data, information,

and results of investigations be available for review by interested

parties.

Service Response: All documents, records, and correspondence

relating to this listing, including data, survey results, analyses,

supporting information, and public comments are included in the

administrative record available for review by the public by

appointment, during normal business hours, at the Ventura Field Office.

Appointments can be made by contacting the Field Supervisor. See

ADDRESSES section.

Issue 31: One commenter asked if this listing was in response to a

lawsuit settlement with the Sierra Club.

Service Response: This listing is not in response to a lawsuit

settlement with the Sierra Club. The listing of the Mount Hermon June

beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper is in response to petitions

submitted by private citizens.

Issue 32: One commenter suggested that the Service conduct field

work to assess the status of the species.

Service Response: The Service's responsibility under the Act is to

compile and review the ``best available information'' concerning the

biology, status, and threats to species. During the listing process the

Service makes efforts to verify information through field visits and

surveys. Primary data collection, however, is generally conducted by

individuals outside the Service.

Issue 33: One commenter asserted that proponents of the listing

should be responsible for demonstrating that a species is endangered.

Service Response: Petitioners and listing proponents are expected

to provide the Service with pertinent data concerning the biology and

threats to a species to demonstrate that listing may be warranted.

After that time, the Service solicits and reviews all available

information to make decisions regarding proposed rules and final

determinations.

Issue 34: One commenter concluded that a conflict of interest

existed for commenters who were involved in a court settlement

regarding preservation of sand parkland habitat.

Service Response: Any member of the public, regardless of

affiliation or position, is invited to submit comments on a proposed

rule during the open comment period.

Issue 35: Three commenters stated that the Service's notification

of the public regarding the proposed rule was inadequate. One commenter

requested that all landowners be directly notified, and that notices be

published in newspapers.

Service Response: The Service provided notification of the proposed

rule to the public through processes required in the Act, including

publication of findings and rules in the Federal Register, publication

of notices in local newspapers, and letters to government officials,

planning offices, regulatory agencies, and other interested

[[Page 3624]]

parties as described at the beginning of this section. Direct

notification of all landowners was attempted by the Service to the

extent practical.

Issue 36: One commenter stated that the Service failed to publish a

90-day finding that the petition to list the Zayante band-winged

grasshopper may be warranted, and failed to make a 12-month

determination following the August 19, 1992, notice for the Mount

Hermon June beetle. Disputing the Service's inclusion of such notices

in the proposed rule, the commenter stated such failures prevented the

submission of information and comment, and recommended the proposed

listing be invalidated.

Service Response: The Service's 90-day finding regarding the

Zayante band-winged grasshopper was made on September 25, 1992 but was

not published in the Federal Register prior to publication of the

proposed rule. The proposed rule constituted the required 12-month

determinations regarding both the Zayante band-winged grasshopper and

the Mount Hermon June beetle. At that time, extensive comment periods

and a public hearing allowed all interested parties to provide comments

and information concerning the proposed action. All input was

considered in preparation of the final determination.

Peer Review

In accordance with policy promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),

the Service solicited the expert opinions of independent specialists

regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions

relating to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive biological

and ecological information for species under consideration for listing.

The purpose of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input

of appropriate experts and specialists.

The data and assumptions regarding the Mount Hermon June beetle and

Zayante band-winged grasshopper were each reviewed by three

specialists. Peer reviewers were identified through inquiries to

research institutions, universities, and museums for individuals with

recognized expertise with the subject taxa. The reviewers were asked to

comment upon specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the

species. Their comments have been incorporated into the final rule as

appropriate and are summarized below.

Reviewers of the Mount Hermon June beetle information agreed that,

although estimates were speculative, the flight range of male beetles

may be limited. Male beetles were attracted to lights, but the maximum

distance traveled was unknown, dependent upon the visibility and

relative strength of the light compared to other attractive stimuli

such as female pheromone or moonlight. All reviewers emphasized the

dependence of fossorial larvae and females on the specific conditions

of the soil. The reviewers also concurred with the Service's conclusion

that the Mount Hermon June beetle was limited to the Zayante sand hills

habitat. One reviewer commented that males may occasionally be trapped

in adjacent habitats, but they probably represent artifacts of random

dispersal and not colonization of different habitat communities. The

same reviewer also suggested the beetle may occur in more densely

vegetated areas of chaparral as well as open sandy areas.

Excavation, soil compaction, and vegetation removal within Mount

Hermon June beetle habitat are recognized as activities expected to

adversely affect the species. Landscaping may have some impact. The

reviewers anticipate the application of some pesticides, such as soil

permeants, could have a negative effect. Adjacent light sources should

not be detrimental to the species, although male Mount Hermon June

beetles may be attracted away from their habitat. Collection was not

considered to significantly threaten the species. One reviewer

suggested additional investigations to assess specific life history,

distributional, and other ecological information before proceeding with

the listing. Another reviewer commented that the survey reports and

other information submitted to the Service concerning the biology of

the beetle were based upon erroneous and unfounded assumptions, poor

methodology, and hearsay. Nonetheless, the Service's comparison of

collection records and independent soil and habitat data was considered

a sufficiently rigorous analysis for concluding the species to be of

limited range and associated with the Zayante sand hills ecosystem.

The reviewers of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper information

agreed that substrate was an important, but not a sole, determining

factor for grasshopper distributions. An assumption that exchange of

individuals between isolated populations would be infrequent because of

short observed flight distances was questioned by one reviewer but

supported by another's experience with other Trimerotropis species. Two

reviewers agreed with the dismissal of non-specifically labeled

historic specimens, but cautioned that additional investigation of the

outlying areas may be warranted if suitable habitat exists. The third

reviewer felt that information should be considered reliable unless

shown otherwise. In the absence of sand parkland habitat elsewhere, all

reviewers concurred with the Service's conclusion that the Zayante

band-winged grasshopper was restricted to sand parkland habitat. The

grasshopper would unlikely occur in adjacent habitats such as redwood

forest, chaparral, grasslands, or coastal habitats. Excavation, soil

compaction, vegetation removal, landscaping, and pesticides were all

recognized as adverse activities affecting the grasshopper. One

reviewer noted that collection of specimens from areas adjacent to

mining operations suggests the species is not particularly impacted by

nearby activities. One reviewer also questioned the distinctiveness of

the grasshopper as a separate species, but deferred final judgment to

others more familiar with the specimens. A reviewer familiar with the

specimens and the genus Trimerotropis confidently defended the Zayante

band-winged grasshopper as a full species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined that the Mount Hermon June beetle

(Polyphylla barbata) and the Zayante band-winged grasshopper

(Trimerotropis infantilis) should be classified as endangered species.

Procedures found at section 4 of the Act and regulations implementing

the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) 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 the Mount Hermon June beetle and the Zayante

band-winged grasshopper are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of their habitat or range. Habitat destruction and

modification are recognized as the primary threats to insect species

(Pyle 1981) because of their narrow distributions and dependence on

specific food plants or edaphic conditions. Both the Mount Hermon June

beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper are restricted to portions

of the Zayante sand hills ecosystem in the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-

Scotts Valley area of Santa Cruz County, California. The Mount Hermon

June beetle occurs in sand parkland and other sparsely vegetated sandy

areas

[[Page 3625]]

within the Zayante sand hills ecosystem. The Zayante band-winged

grasshopper is narrowly restricted to sand parkland on ridgetops and

saddles. Both species are imminently endangered by ongoing and

threatened destruction and adverse modification of their habitats by

one or more of the following activities--sand mining, urban

development, recreational use of habitat, and agriculture.

The ranges of both species are limited by the substrate found in

the Zayante soils, and the availability of suitable food plants within

the Zayante sand hills and sand parkland habitats. The Mount Hermon

June beetle is threatened by excavation and construction activities

that crush or expose fossorial larvae and females, resulting in

mortalities and elimination of reproductive populations (W. Hazeltine,

in litt. 1994). Clearance of native Zayante sand hills vegetation and

cultivation of non-native plant species in landscaping also may

adversely affect the Mount Hermon June beetle by eliminating food

plants and disrupting the soil. The Zayante band-winged grasshopper is

similarly threatened by removal and alteration of the sand parkland

habitat.

Historically, approximately 2533 ha (6265 ac) of Zayante sand hills

habitat occurred in Santa Cruz County. Over 40 percent of this habitat

has disappeared, primarily due to urban development and mining; 1459 ha

(3608 ac) currently remain in a natural state (Lee 1994). Sand parkland

habitat has been more dramatically reduced; over 60 percent of this

habitat has been lost, mostly to sand mining. An estimated 200 to 240

ha (500 to 600 ac) existed historically (Marangio and Morgan 1987; Lee

1994). By 1986, only 100 ha (250 ac) remained intact (Marangio and

Morgan 1987). Currently, sand parkland is limited to approximately 78

ha (193 ac) (Lee 1994).

Sand mining and urban development are the most significant causes

of habitat loss in the Ben Lomond-Mount Hermon-Scotts Valley region.

Sand deposits within the Zayante sand hills habitat have been actively

mined for construction purposes for at least five decades (Storie et

al. 1944 in Griffin 1964). Three sand mines in the area are in

operation and have permits to mine areas of sand parkland and Zayante

sand hills habitat that are currently undisturbed (S. Smith, County of

Santa Cruz Planning Department, pers. comm. 1994). Two of the three

mines support little undisturbed habitat (S. Smith, pers. comm. 1996).

The Service has been participating in the development of a multi-

species habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the third mine, Quail

Hollow Quarry, within the San Lorenzo Valley in Santa Cruz County,

California. The County of Santa Cruz, the owner and operator of the

Quarry (respectively Granite Rock Company and Santa Cruz Aggregates),

and intervenors (South Ridge Watershed Association, Sierra Club, and

California Native Plant Society) entered into a Settlement Agreement in

June of 1994 that resolved longstanding litigation regarding Granite

Rock's right to continue mining at the site. As part of that Agreement,

Granite Rock is permitted to continue mining in designated areas of the

quarry site, subject to obtaining the necessary mining approvals, and

portions of the site containing extremely significant biological

resources, including the two insects, will be preserved in perpetuity

through purchase of the South Ridge and through dedication of a

conservation easement for the areas on the North and West Ridges

containing sand parkland habitat. A fourth mine is closed at this time,

but may reopen if funds become available (S. Smith, pers. comm. 1994).

Seventeen of the 28 Mount Hermon June beetle collection locations, and

9 of the 10 Zayante band-winged grasshopper collection sites are

adjacent to areas used for sand mining.

Mining of sand from undisturbed areas would result in the

destruction of habitat for the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante

band-winged grasshopper. Permits held by the mining companies require

revegetation efforts in mined areas as part of reclamation plans.

However, such revegetation plans are considered inadequate to

successfully restore the biological integrity of sand parkland and

Zayante sand hills habitats; the technical feasibility of such

restoration is questioned because of the diversity of the ecosystem's

flora and fauna and the complexity of the soil facies and edaphic

conditions (Davilla 1990; Gilchrist 1990; Murphy 1990).

Urban development also has resulted in significant alteration and

loss of habitat. Construction of private homes, roads, and businesses

has removed vegetation and modified soils through excavation,

compaction, and disruption of soil horizons. More than 480 ha (1200 ac)

of Zayante sand hills habitat have been developed for these purposes.

Recent expansion of juvenile hall facilities near Mount Hermon

eliminated portions of an area known to support Mount Hermon June

beetles (W. Hazeltine, pers. comm. 1994). One site where Zayante band-

winged grasshoppers were previously collected is now a parking lot (D.

Weissman, pers. comm. 1993). Fourteen collection sites for Mount Hermon

June beetles and two known locations of Zayante band-winged

grasshoppers are adjacent to residential, commercial and public

developments. The County of Santa Cruz and the City of Scotts Valley

have existing plans, zoning designations, and approved permits for

continued development in these areas (Marangio 1985; Lee 1994), thereby

further reducing and fragmenting Zayante sand hills habitat.

Recreational uses of Zayante sand hills habitats may adversely

affect the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper

through habitat disturbance and degradation. Recreational uses include

off-road vehicles (ORVs), equestrian activities, hiking, bicycling, and

camping. These activities crush and remove vegetation, cause compaction

of soils, promote soil erosion, and occasionally result in oil and

gasoline spills. Off-road motorcycle events (200+ people) occur on sand

parkland (A. Haynes, San Lorenzo Water District, pers. comm. 1993).

Off-road vehicle damage also is noted at the Geyer Quarry and on the

South Ridge of the Quail Hollow Quarry, a site considered to be the

highest quality patch of intact sand parkland habitat (Lee 1994).

Disturbance from equestrian use is reported from five sand parkland

areas (Lee 1994). A campground encompasses approximately half of the

sand parkland habitat within Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (D.

Hillyard, pers. comm. 1993; S. Steinmetz, pers. comm. 1993), and foot

and ORV traffic are recognized as causes of erosion damage at the Quail

Hollow Ranch County Park (County of Santa Cruz 1990).

Limited agricultural activities have also contributed to habitat

fragmentation and degradation in the Zayante sand hills ecosystem.

While the Zayante soils are generally of little agricultural value,

Zayante sand hills habitat has been, and may continue to be, used for

agricultural purposes. Currently, portions of two sand parkland areas

are zoned for timber harvest (Lee 1994). Other areas of Zayante sand

hills habitat have been proposed for conversion to vineyards (Davilla

1980).

The Service has reviewed a notice of preparation for the

development of an educational park within the City of Scotts Valley on

a site where Mount Hermon June beetles and Zayante band-winged

grasshoppers have been sighted. The Scotts Valley Unified School

District evaluated numerous alternative sites before choosing the

current location for the proposed facility. Recently, the Service was

informed that

[[Page 3626]]

an alternative site for the proposed park may be selected.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Amateur collecting for the Mount Hermon June

beetle occurs on a limited basis during the narrow flight periods of

the species. As this species becomes more difficult to find, the

interest of collectors may increase; however, overutilization by

collection is not known to occur at this time.

Collection of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper has occurred

during surveys for this and other invertebrate species; however,

overutilization of this species by collection is not known to occur at

this time.

C. Disease or predation. Mount Hermon June beetles may be preyed

upon by some bird species. However, the early evening flight time of

the Mount Hermon June beetle is thought to reflect an evolutionary

adaptation for predator avoidance, coinciding with the cessation of

bird activity (W. Hazeltine, in litt. 1994). Based upon laboratory

observations, larvae may be susceptible to fungal infestations if soil

conditions are too moist (W. Hazeltine, in litt. 1993). However, the

significance of such mortality sources is unknown.

One Zayante band-winged grasshopper specimen was observed to be

parasitized by a tachinid fly (White 1993). However, the significance

of parasitization on populations of this species is unknown.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory

mechanisms currently in effect do not provide adequate protection for

the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper and

their habitats. Federal agencies are not legally required to consider

and manage for these species during project design and implementation,

although some Federal agencies have policies that encourage

consideration of candidate species in the design and implementation of

Federal projects.

At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms also are

limited. The Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged

grasshopper are not listed by the State of California under the

California Endangered Species Act. State and local agencies may

consider these taxa when evaluating certain activities for compliance

with the CEQA and local zoning regulations. If an activity is

identified as having a potential impact on these species, mitigation

measures may be required by State and local regulating agencies to

offset these impacts. However, these regulations do not provide

specific protection measures to ensure the continued existence of these

species. In addition, CEQA provisions for ``Statements of Overriding

Considerations'' can allow projects to proceed despite unmitigated

adverse impacts. The County of Santa Cruz requires that proposed

projects comply with both general zoning requirements and environmental

designations. However, properties within Zayante sand hills habitats

are zoned for special use, timber production, mining, and residential

development. Special use zoning allows for residential-agricultural,

residential, commercial, and industrial development (Lee 1994).

Public ownership of lands with Zayante sand hills and sand parkland

habitats suitable for the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper is limited to the Quail Hollow Ranch, Bonny Doon

Ecological Preserve, and Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park. The Mount

Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper are only known

to occur in Quail Hollow Ranch. None of these properties currently has

a management plan that specifically provides protection for the two

species or their habitats. In addition, Zayante sand hills habitat on

Quail Hollow Ranch is reported to be degraded by off-trail equestrian

activities and other illegal access (Lee 1994; S. McCabe, pers. comm.

1994).

A settlement agreement between local conservation groups and one of

the sand mining companies resulted in action to preserve three parcels

of sand parkland and Zayante sand hills habitat. All three of these

parcels support the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged

grasshopper. However, preservation of the parcels is contingent upon

acquisition of the ``South Ridge,'' a parcel recognized as the highest

quality sand parkland habitat. Funds necessary for the $3.5 million

settlement purchase have not yet been committed (C. Scott, pers. comm.

1994; Ken Hart, pers. comm. 1996).

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. Pesticides could pose a threat to the Zayante band-winged

grasshopper. Pesticide application is expected at existing and planned

golf courses and may occur on a limited basis at vineyards in the area.

Local landowners may use pesticides to control targeted invertebrate

species around homes and businesses. These pesticides may drift and

kill non-targeted species such as the Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

Because the Mount Hermon June beetle is fossorial, air-borne

pesticides would not likely reach and affect the species. However,

application of soil permeant pesticides could pose a threat (W.

Hazeltine, in litt., 1994). During the flight season males of this

species also may be subject to mortality from attraction to electric

``bug zappers'' (W. Hazeltine, in litt. 1994). The significance of such

mortality is unknown, however.

The quality of remaining habitat for the Mount Hermon June beetle

and Zayante band-winged grasshopper may decline because of fire

suppression in the Zayante sand hills habitat. Periodic wildfire is

thought to be critical to maintenance of the Zayante sand hills habitat

mosaic. The presence of fire-dependent species such as knobcone pine

and Santa Cruz cypress suggests that fire is important for resetting

vegetational succession within the chaparral communities, and for

maintaining the open characteristics of ponderosa pine stands and sand

parkland. Fire also may prevent the invasion of species from the

surrounding mixed evergreen forest; encroachments by madrone (Arbutus

menziesii) and other species from surrounding mixed evergreen forest

into Zayante sand hills habitat have been attributed to reduced fire

frequency (Marangio 1985).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper in determining to make this rule final. Based on

this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the Mount Hermon June

beetle (Polyphylla barbata) and Zayante band-winged grasshopper

(Trimerotropis infantilis) as endangered. This status was determined

because these species are ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of [their] range'' (section 3(6) of the Act)

because of threats from one or more of the following factors--sand

mining, urban development, recreational use of habitat, increased

vulnerability to naturally occurring extirpation, and habitat

restriction and decline. Critical habitat is not being designated for

these species for the 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

[[Page 3627]]

protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by the 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 designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the Mount

Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper 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 threat to the species, or (2) such

designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

Designation of critical habitat would not benefit the Mount Hermon

June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper because all populations

of the two species occur on non-Federal lands where Federal involvement

in land-use activities does not generally occur. Prohibitions of

adverse modification to critical habitat apply only to Federal actions.

Therefore, additional protection afforded to designated critical

habitat would only be realized if a Federal nexus existed. Possible

nexuses on non-Federal lands include 404 permits from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and funds from Federal housing or highway programs.

However, no such nexuses are known or anticipated within the habitat

and range of these species.

Furthermore, in the case of the Mount Hermon June beetle, the

determination of critical habitat would be detrimental to the

conservation of the species. Determination of the location and extent

of reproductive populations and evaluation of edaphic requirements

would require excavation and consequent destruction of habitat occupied

by larvae and females.

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 results in public awareness and

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 taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Under section 4 of the Act, listing the Mount Hermon June beetle

and Zayante band-winged grasshopper provides for the development of a

recovery plan, which will bring together Federal, State, local

government, and private agencies and individuals to develop

conservation strategies for these species. The recovery plan would

develop a framework of recovery activities, priorities, and funding

requirements to accomplish conservation objectives and ensure the

survival and recovery of the Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-

winged grasshopper.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as

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

any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

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

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 the species or 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. Because no Federal lands exist

within the range of these two species, consultations would only occur

if a Federal agency had discretion over permit issuance or funding of

projects. Such Federal involvement is neither known, nor anticipated,

within the habitat and range of the Mount Hermon June beetle and

Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

Section 9 of the Act and implementing regulations set forth a

series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in

part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to take, import or export, ship in interstate commerce in

the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. The definition of

``take'' includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these. It is also

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such

wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions 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 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. During the public comment period the Service received

inquiries about the effect listing would have on the sand mining

industry, commercial and residential development and maintenance

activities, and recreational activities. Based on the best available

information, the following actions would not result in a violation of

section 9, provided these activities are carried out in accordance with

existing regulations and permit requirements--removal of the two insect

species from swimming pools, birdbaths, window screens, and the like

with immediate and safe replacement in more suitable habitat; normal

lighting around residences and commercial buildings; normal maintenance

of backyard gardens; reasonable recreational use of existing maintained

trails within Zayante sand hills habitat; use of existing roadways and

railroads; and continued sand mining within existing excavated areas.

Activities that could result in the take of the Mount Hermon June

beetle or Zayante band-winged grasshopper include, but are not limited

to, unauthorized collection or capture of the species, except as noted

above to relocate individuals out of danger; destruction or alteration

of the species' habitat (e.g. excavating, compacting, grading, or

discing of soil, vegetation removal); violations of grading, mining, or

construction permits that affect occupied habitat; off-road vehicle use

on occupied habitat; and application of pesticides beyond the

boundaries of maintained lawns and gardens or in violation of label

restrictions.

Other unauthorized activities not identified above will be reviewed

on a case-by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the

Act may have occurred. The Service does not consider these lists to be

exhaustive and provides them for the information of the public.

Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a

[[Page 3628]]

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the Service's Ventura Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.

Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species, or for incidental take in the

course of otherwise lawful activities. Requests for copies of the

regulations regarding listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions

and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6241, facsimile 503/231-6243).

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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (49 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. This rulemaking was not subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,

is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary authors of this document are Carl Benz and Jonathan

Hoekstra, Ventura Field Office (see ADDRESSES section, telephone 805/

644-1766).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and 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 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in

alphabetical order under Insects, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

Insects (Class Insecta)

* * * * * * *

Grasshoppers and Allies (Insects,

Order Orthoptera)

* * * * * * *

Grasshopper, Zayante band-winged. Trimerotropis U.S.A. (CA)........ NA................. E 605 NA NA

infantilis.

* * * * * * *

Beetles (Insects, Order

Coleoptera)

* * * * * * *

Beetle, Mount Hermon June........ Polyphylla barbata.. U.S.A. (CA)........ NA................. E 605 NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: January 6, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97-1674 Filed 1-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P