Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for ``Pseudobahia bahiifolia'' (Hartweg's golden sunburst) and Threatened Status for ``Pseudobahia peirsonii'' (San Joaquin adobe sunburst), Two Grassland Plants From the Central Valley of California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB88

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for ``Pseudobahia bahiifolia'' (Hartweg's golden

sunburst) and Threatened Status for ``Pseudobahia peirsonii'' (San

Joaquin adobe sunburst), Two Grassland Plants From the Central Valley

of California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

status for Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg's golden sunburst) and

threatened status for Pseudobahia peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe

sunburst) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act). The two plants occur primarily in nonnative grasslands in the

eastern and southeastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley, but also

at a few sites at the ecotone between grasslands dominated by nonnative

species and blue oak woodland communities. Both plants are threatened

primarily by conversion of habitat to residential development. To a

lesser extent, the species are variously threatened by agriculture (ag-

land development), competition from nonnative plants, incompatible

grazing practices, transmission line maintenance, recreational

activities, mining, road construction and maintenance, a flood control

project, and other human impacts. Potential threats include herbicide

application to control herbaceous and weedy taxa. This rule implements

the Federal protection and recovery provisions afforded by the Act for

these species.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public

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

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310 El Camino

Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Warne (see ADDRESSES

section) telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 916/979-2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg's golden sunburst) and Pseudobahia

peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe sunburst) are endemic to the nonnative

grassland and grassland-blue oak woodland community ecotone of the

southern Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley of California. These

two valleys comprise the Central Valley. The prehistoric composition of

the native grasslands and adjoining plant communities likely will

remain a mystery (Brown 1982), although numerous authors have

speculated as to the composition of the ``pristine'' flora of the

Central Valley (Clements 1934, Munz and Keck 1950, Biswell 1956,

Twisselmann 1956, White 1967, McNaughton 1968, Bakker 1971, Ornduff

1974, Heady 1977, Bartolome and Gremmill 1981, and Wester 1981).

Nonnative annual grasses and forbs invaded the low elevation plant

communities of California during the days of the Franciscan

missionaries in the 1700's. These nonnative grasses now account for up

to 80 percent or more of the floral composition of the grasslands of

California (Heady 1956). The nonnative grasses have outcompeted the

native flora throughout much of California because these exotics

germinate in late fall prior to the germination of the native forbs,

including the two sunflower species discussed herein, Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii. Each species, however, occurs in

a distinctive microhabitat within the larger matrix of nonnative annual

grassland. Pseudobahia bahiifolia prefers the top of ``Mima'' mound

topography where the grass cover is

[[Page 5543]]

minimal (Stebbins 1991). Vernal pools, an increasingly rare California

landform, are often interspersed with the Mima mounds (Stebbins 1991).

Pseudobahia peirsonii prefers heavy adobe clay soils where the water

retention properties are high.

Karl Hartweg, a German botanist, first collected Pseudobahia

bahiifolia on Cordua's farm near the junction of the Yuba and Feather

Rivers in Yuba County, California in April of 1847. George Bentham

described the species as Monolopia bahiaefolia in 1849. Edward L.

Greene placed the species in the genus Eriophyllum in 1897. In 1915,

Per Rydberg established the genus Pseudobahia on the basis of leaf and

floral morphology and formed the new combination Pseudobahia

bahiaefolia. Dale Johnson (1978) recognized a spelling error in the

specific epithet bahiaefolia and used Pseudobahia bahiifolia in his

doctoral dissertation.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia, a member of the sunflower or aster family

(Asteraceae), is one of three species of Pseudobahia in the subtribe

Eriophyllinae of the tribe Helenieae (Johnson 1978). The species is a

few-branched annual about 6 to 15 centimeters (cm) (2 to 6 inches

(in.)) tall, covered throughout with white, wooly hairs. Its leaves are

narrow, alternate, three-lobed or entire with three blunt teeth at the

apex, and about 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in.) long. The bright yellow

flower heads, produced in March or April, are solitary at the ends of

the branches. The ray flowers are equal in number to the sub-floral

bracts (phyllaries) and the pappus is absent. Pseudobahia bahiifolia is

distinguished from other members of the genus by having the largest

leaves, entire or three-lobed versus once or twice pinnatifid, as in

Pseudobahia heermanii and Pseudobahia peirsonii. The range of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is strongly correlated with the distribution of

the Amador and Rocklin soil series (Stebbins 1991). Both series

generally consist of shallow, well-drained, medium-textured soils that

exhibit strong Mima mound microrelief (Stebbins 1991). Such topography

is characterized by a series of mounds that may range from 30 cm to 2

meters (m) (1.0 to 6.6 feet (ft)) in height and 3 to 30 m (10 to 98 ft)

in basal diameter interspersed with shallow basins that may pond water

during the rainy season (Bates and Jackson 1987). Pseudobahia

bahiifolia nearly always occurs on the north or northeast facing slopes

of the mounds, with the highest plant densities on upper slopes with

minimal grass cover (Stebbins 1991). A variant of one of the two soil

series is concentrated near Friant in Madera County and contains large

quantities of pumice, which is mined for use as an industrial binder

and is used in making concrete blocks (Chesterman and Schmidt 1956).

According to a status survey by John Stebbins (1991), Pseudobahia

bahiifolia may have existed throughout the Central Valley of California

from Yuba County in the north to Fresno County in the south, a range of

approximately 322 kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi)). The plant presently

occurs only in the eastern San Joaquin Valley in Stanislaus, Madera,

and Fresno Counties, a range of approximately 153 km (95 mi). One

population occurs on land owned and managed jointly by the Bureau of

Reclamation and a private owner; the remaining populations all occur on

privately owned property (California Natural Diversity Data Base

(CNDDB) 1996).

Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants occur in two

general locations. One site, in Madera County, approximately 0.8 km

(0.5 mile) long and containing about 16,000 plants, is the remnant of

one large population that now has become fragmented. The second large

population, in Stanislaus County, covers about 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres

(ac)) and contains approximately 15,000 plants. Although the number of

individuals per population of annual species is highly variable from

year to year, 11 of 16 extant populations are very small, and numbered

fewer than 200 plants during the 1990 field season (Stebbins 1991).

Conversion of native habitat to residential development is the

primary threat to the existence of Pseudobahia bahiifolia. To a lesser

degree, agriculture (ag-land development), competition from aggressive

exotic plants, incompatible grazing practices, mining, and other human

impacts actions also threaten the species (CNDDB 1996).

In March 1925, Philip Munz first collected specimens of Pseudobahia

peirsonii in a grassy flat near Ducor in Tulare County, California.

Until Munz described Pseudobahia peirsonii as a species in 1949,

specimens had been included in Monopolia heermani, Eriophyllum

heermani, or Pseudobahia heermani, depending on the prevailing

treatment of the time (Stebbins 1991). Sherwin Carlquist (1956) and

Johnson (1978) supported Munz's taxonomic position with additional

morphological and cytological evidence.

Pseudobahia peirsonii, like Pseudobahia bahiifolia, is a member of

the Asteraceae family and is an erect annual herb about 1 to 6

decimeters (dm) (4 to 18 in.) tall, loosely covered with white, wooly

hairs. Its alternate leaves are twice divided into smaller divisions

(bipinnatifid), triangular in outline, and 2 to 6 cm (1 to 3 in.) in

length. Flower heads, which appear in March or April, are solitary at

the ends of the branches. The ray flowers are bright yellow and equal

in number to the subfloral bracts and about 3 millimeters (mm) (0.1

in.) long with many disk flowers; the pappus is absent. The dry fruits,

called achenes, are black. Pseudobahia peirsonii is distinguished from

Pseudobahia heermani, the species most similar in appearance, primarily

by its subfloral bracts, which are united only at the base versus

united to half their length in the latter species.

Pseudobahia peirsonii occurs only on heavy adobe clay soils over a

range of approximately 193 km (120 mi) through Fresno, Tulare, and Kern

counties. One population occurs on land owned and managed by the Fresno

Flood Control District; two populations occur on land owned by the U.

S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); all other populations occur on

privately owned land (CNDDB 1996). Stebbins (1991) speculates that the

edaphic restriction is associated with the ability of these clay soils

to retain moisture longer into the summer dry season. These soils are

mainly distributed in the valleys and flats near the foothills of the

southeastern San Joaquin Valley (Stebbins 1991). Avena fatua, Brassica

kaber, Bromus mollis, Bromus rubens, and Erodium cicutarium are some of

the common nonnative associates of Pseudobahia peirsonii (Stebbins

1991). The intrusive and aggressive characteristics of herbaceous weedy

species appear to be detrimental to habitat quality of this rare plant.

Pseudobahia peirsonii is concentrated in three major locations--

east of Fresno in Fresno County; west of Lake Success in Tulare County;

and northeast of Bakersfield in Kern County. Of the 36 known

occurrences, 20 are small and contain fewer than 250 plants (Stebbins

1991; Karen and Gregory Kirkpatrick, KAS Consultants, in litt. 1993;

CNDDB 1996). Approximately 80 percent of all plants are contained in 4

populations (CNDDB 1996, Mark Mebane, rancher, in litt. 1993).

Conversion of natural habitat to residential development is the primary

threat to Pseudobahia peirsonii. In addition, road maintenance

projects, recreational activities, competition from nonnative plants,

ag-land development, incompatible grazing practices, a flood control

project, transmission line maintenance, and other human impacts also

may threaten the species.

[[Page 5544]]

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these two plants began as a result of

section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be

endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. The report,

designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on

January 9, 1975. In the report, Pseudobahia bahiifolia was included as

a threatened species and Pseudobahia peirsonii as an endangered

species.

On July 1, 1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal

Register (40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report as a petition

within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3) of the Act),

and its intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named

therein. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii were included

in that notice. On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposed rule

in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700

vascular plant species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4

of the Act. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of

comments and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the

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

Federal Register publication. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and the

Pseudobahia peirsonii were included in the June 16, 1976 Federal

Register document.

General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR

17909). The Act Amendments of 1978 required that all existing proposals

over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those

proposals already more than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the

Service published a notice in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) of

withdrawal of that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not

been made final, along with four proposals that had expired due to a

procedural requirement of the 1978 Amendments.

On December 15, 1980, the Service published a revised Notice of

Review of native plants in the Federal Register (45 FR 82480).

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii were included as

category 1 candidate species, meaning that the Service had in its

possession substantial information on biological vulnerability and

threats to support preparation of a listing proposal. On November 28,

1983, the Service published in the Federal Register (48 FR 53640) a

supplement to the 1980 Notice of Review. This supplement treated

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii as category 2 species,

meaning that the data in the Service's possession indicated listing may

be appropriate, but that substantial data on biological vulnerability

and threats were not currently known or on file to support preparation

of a proposed rule. The plant notice was again revised on September 27,

1985 (50 FR 39526). Both species remained in category 2. In the

February 21, 1990, revision of the plant notice (55 FR 6184),

Pseudobahia bahiifolia remained as a category 2 candidate species and

Pseudobahia peirsonii returned to category 1 status. On February 28,

1996, the Service published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register

(61 FR 7596) that discontinued the designation of category 2 species as

candidates.

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

findings on certain pending petitions within 12 months of their

receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that

all petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been

newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii because the 1975 Smithsonian

report had been accepted as a petition. On October 13, 1983, the

Service found that the petitioned listing of these species was

warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions, in

accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act; notification of

this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a

finding required the petition to be recycled, pursuant to section

4(b)(3)(c)(I) of the Act. The finding was reviewed annually in October

of 1984 through 1991.

A proposed rule to list Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia

peirsonii as endangered was published in the Federal Register on

November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56549). That proposal was based, in large

part, on the status survey and occurrence data, and information on

pending projects that would adversely affect the two species.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia was included in the proposal after a review of

existing information indicated that the species should be assigned

category 1 status and that the proposal for listing was warranted. The

Service now determines Pseudobahia bahiifolia to be an endangered

species and Pseudobahia peirsonii to be a threatened species with the

publication of this rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the November 30, 1992, proposed rule (57 FR 56549) and

associated notifications, all interested parties were requested to

submit factual reports or information to assist the Service in

determining whether these two species warrant listing. Appropriate

Federal and State agencies, county and city governments, scientific

organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and

requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general comment were

published on December 16, 1992, in the Hanford Sentinel, and

Porterville Recorder; on December 17, 1992, in the Bakersfield

Californian, Fresno Bee, Madera Daily Tribune, Modesto Bee, Union

Democrat, and Advance-Register; and on December 18, 1992, in the

Visalia Times-Delta. The Service received written requests for a public

hearing from Congressman Bill Thomas, Kern County Farm Bureau, Tulare

County Cattlemen's Association, and Kern County Cattlemen's

Association. As a result, the Service published a notice of a public

hearing on April 2, 1993 (58 FR 17376), and extended the deadline for

the comment period to May 3, 1993. The Service conducted the public

hearing on April 21, 1993, at the Kern County Administrative Center

Board Chambers in Bakersfield, California.

During the comment period, the Service received 28 comments

(letters and oral testimony), including representatives from a Federal

agency, a State agency, a County agency, and 21 individuals. Eight

commenters supported listing, 15 opposed listing or favored delaying

the listing, and five were neutral. In addition, several individuals

presented oral and written testimony during the public comment period

concerning the 1989 Tulare Pseudobahia Species Management Plan, written

for the California Department of Fish and Game. This document was not

written for the Service, nor was it used to support the Federal listing

action of the two species. Comments or portions of comments that were

submitted to the Service addressing this plan are considered not

substantive and are not considered in the response section of this

rule.

Written comments or oral statements obtained during the public

hearing and comment period are combined in the following discussion.

Opposing comments and comments questioning the listing have been

organized into specific issues. The majority of comments concerned

Pseudobahia peirsonii. These issues and the Service's

[[Page 5545]]

response to each are summarized as follows:

Issue 1

The status survey covered only known documented sites; the listing

should be delayed until a more thorough survey is conducted.

Service Response

The field survey for both species (Stebbins 1991) examined 55

previously documented sites. Data from observations at the known sites

were used to identify suitable habitat areas to search for undocumented

populations of the two species. As a result, 69 additional sites within

and adjoining the population concentrations within the ranges of the

species were explored. It should be noted that, in cases where access

was denied by private landowners of historical sites, these sites were

not surveyed. The current status on these sites is unknown. Surveys

conducted on Pseudobahia peirsonii after 1990, showed that many

populations continued to decrease in size during 1991 and 1992 in spite

of increased rainfall (J. Stebbins, California State University,

Fresno, pers. comm. 1993). One commenter who supported the listing of

Pseudobahia peirsonii, submitted additional population data from an

extensive survey conducted in Tulare County in 1992. This information

has been incorporated into this rule. This commenter also noted that

portions of eastern Kern County contain the only remaining suitable

Pseudobahia peirsonii habitat that has not been thoroughly surveyed for

the species. A landowner in Kern County commented that he discovered

one population that had been presumed extirpated in the status survey,

as well as four previously unrecorded populations, the largest of which

contained approximately 10,000 plants. Information on all newly

recorded populations has been incorporated into this rule. Much of the

suitable habitat for these species has been surveyed. In the period of

time since the publication of the proposed rule in 1993, no data have

been presented to contradict the Service's contention that these

species are imperiled by habitat loss and other threats described in

the Summary of Factors. The Service believes that sufficient

information is available on these species to warrant determination of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia as endangered and Pseudobahia peirsonii as

threatened.

Issue 2

The Service should consider economic effects in determining whether

to list these species under the Act.

Service Response

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listing determination must

be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.

The legislative history of this provision clearly states the intent of

Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based solely on

biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from

affecting such decisions'', H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.

19 (1982). As further stated in the legislative history, ``Applying

economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species listing process is

applying economics to the determinations made under section 4 of the

Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of the word

``solely'' in this legislation.'' H.R. Rep. No. 567, part I, 97th

Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1982).

Issue 3

Extensive grazing poses no threat to Pseudobahia peirsonii.

Populations of this species have been grazed for 100 years or more with

no adverse effects. Grazing is necessary for the species to compete

against aggressive weeds.

Service Response

Any assessment of the historical range and population size of the

species is complicated by the fact that most records of plant

populations were begun after widespread agricultural development had

occurred (Stebbins 1991). No range or population data exists for

Pseudobahia peirsonii prior to 1925, the year this species was first

collected by Phillip Munz. All known extant populations are found in

grazed grasslands dominated by nonnative grasses and forbs. Populations

not grazed by domestic livestock are unknown. Because the extent and

size of populations prior to introduction of domestic livestock is also

unknown, it cannot be shown that there has been no historical decline

in Pseudobahia peirsonii due to grazing.

Appropriate grazing practices may, in fact, prove beneficial to

Pseudobahia peirsonii. Some populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii appear

to be stable under current grazing practices at their sites (CNDDB

1996). Grazing reduces the cover and probably the amount of seed

produced by weedy species that compete with Pseudobahia peirsonii.

Several botanists experienced with Pseudobahia peirsonii commented that

``well-managed, moderate'' grazing is conducive to the survival of the

plant and that ``removing the cattle entirely can promote the rapid

growth of nonnative plants against which Pseudobahia peirsonii has

difficulty competing.'' Timing of grazing also may affect weedy species

abundance. A controlled sheep grazing study showed that early spring

grazing resulted in a higher frequency of native grasses than did later

grazing (Amme and Pitschel 1989).

Inappropriate grazing practices may, however, be detrimental to the

species in several ways. Soil disturbance by grazing animals may allow

nonnative or weedy species that are adapted to growing in disturbed

sites to become established (Zedler 1987); these species may, for

various reasons, have an advantage over Pseudobahia peirsonii in

competition for water, light, or nutrients. Excessive trampling by

livestock also can degrade habitat by compacting the soil and promoting

erosion. Although the palatability of Pseudobahia peirsonii to cattle

is unknown, grazing animals are less selective at heavy grazing

pressure when less forage is available per animal (Kothmann 1983). Any

remaining plants, therefore, have a higher probability of being grazed.

This increased grazing pressure in turn affects seed production and can

result in population decline (Heady 1961). Reduced population sizes

during periods of drought may be more susceptible to the impacts of

inappropriate grazing practices. Over half of all known populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii had fewer than 250 individuals in 1991.

Issue 4

The status survey was conducted in a drought year, which resulted

in abnormally low population counts.

Service Response

The Service used the best available data at the time the proposal

was written. It was not possible to predict the duration of the drought

or to postpone the survey until a favorable rainfall year. Although the

drought may have had adverse effects on the size of the Pseudobahia

peirsonii populations, surveys conducted on Pseudobahia peirsonii after

1990 revealed that despite increased rainfall, many populations

continued to decrease in size during 1991 and 1992. Observations made

in the spring of 1993 showed that most populations covered more area

and contained more plants than in previous years; however, extirpated

sites did not reappear (J. Stebbins, pers. comm. 1993). Population

counts of annual species would be expected to fluctuate yearly

according to climatic conditions.

[[Page 5546]]

Moreover, the factors threatening the remaining habitat of these

species are not diminished by annual population fluctuations. As stated

earlier, no data have been presented to contradict the Service's

contention that these species are threatened by factors described in

the Summary of Factors.

Issue 5

The sampling period for Pseudobahia peirsonii (1 month during 1

year), was too short; more sites may have been found during a longer

sampling period.

Service Response

Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia are small annual

plants with a short blooming period of 3 to 4 weeks in March and April.

The period of time in which population surveys can be conducted most

efficiently is during the blooming period, when the plants are most

readily detectible and identifiable. The plants are less visible later

in the year as the surrounding vegetation becomes denser and

Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia begin to produce seed

and die. To determine the range of both species, all sites from

historical records, as well as potential sites, were surveyed during

this 1 month period. The goal of the survey was not to determine actual

plant numbers but rather the location, condition, and relative size of

the populations and habitat. Actual plant numbers are not as useful an

index of population health as is condition of occupied habitat and

general population condition. Annual species can vary widely from year

to year in numbers of plants due to variation in environmental

conditions. The Service believes that the properly-timed survey period

during 1990 was appropriate to evaluate the status of both species. No

significant distributional data affecting the status of either species

has been reported during subsequent surveys. Although several new

populations have been reported, most are small, isolated, occur within

the known range of the species, and are threatened by the same

activities affecting previously known populations.

Issue 6

The status survey was not ``peer-reviewed'' before being accepted

by the Service; all data were collected by one botanist and, therefore,

subject to personal bias.

Service Response

During the compilation of the document, the author of the survey

consulted frequently with several respected botanists, all of whom had

recent experience with Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia

bahiifolia. Historical population data were compiled by CNDDB from

records dating back to 1897. Field data from 1990 were collected by

several technicians and were field checked by the author.

Issue 7

Statements contained in the proposed rule concerning the low

numbers of seeds of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii in

the seed bank are speculative because no samples were taken.

Service Response

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii, when growing in

marginal habitats, produce few seeds in comparison to the vigorous seed

output of the surrounding nonnative grasses and forbs (Stebbins, pers.

comm., 1993). All remaining populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii are considered to occur in marginal or degraded

habitat dominated by nonnative species and may suffer from reduced seed

output resulting from poor physical condition and competition (J.

Stebbins, pers. comm., 1993). In addition to proportionally low seed

input to the seed bank, the overall seed bank of these two species may

become smaller if reduction in population size and consequent reduction

in seed production occurs.

Issue 8

No populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii are threatened by highway

construction.

Service Response

The status of the highway construction projects discussed in the

proposed rule has been reviewed. The present status of these projects

indicates that they do not pose a threat to the species; the final rule

has been revised to reflect this information. Nine populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii, however, are threatened by county and private

road maintenance as mentioned under Factor A of Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species.

Issue 9

Current zoning laws and economic conditions make future protection

an unnecessary duplication of existing regulations.

Service Response

As was previously stated in the proposed rule (57 FR 56549),

existing State and local regulations are inadequate to protect these

species. Nearly all populations of both species occur entirely on

private land. State and Federal laws are limited in their ability to

regulate potentially detrimental activities on private property.

Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia are listed as

endangered under the Natural Plant Protection Act of 1977 and the

California Endangered Species Act of 1984. Although both statutes

prohibit the ``take'' of State listed species, State law exempts the

taking of plant species via habitat modification or land use change by

the landowner. Current county zoning ordinances do not offer protection

from land conversion. In each of the five counties in which the two

species occur, no ordinances exist that regulate the conversion of land

use from grazing to agricultural use. The Madera County General Plan

states that the proposed permitted residential development in that

county likely will result in the significant degradation or complete

elimination of the two populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia that occur

in Madera County (Madera County Planning Department 1994). These

populations represent approximately half of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia

plants. The majority of habitat loss that has already occurred for both

species has been a result of conversion of natural land to agricultural

use. Current economic conditions do not represent a safeguard against

future development and change in land use.

Issue 10

The status survey on which the listing is partially based was

unpublished and not available to the public before the species were

proposed to be listed.

Service Response

The status survey was prepared to assist the Service in compiling

available scientific and commercial information, including additional

field surveys and habitat evaluation. The status report was completed

in January 1991 and has been available to the public upon request since

that time.

Issue 11

Methods used to collect population data for the status survey were

not scientific and not described.

Service Response

The method used to examine the populations of both species was a

meandering transect (Stebbins, pers. comm. 1993). This is an

established method for surveying for rare plant species (Nelson 1985).

Population data consisting of numbers and size class

[[Page 5547]]

distribution of individual plants were collected. Additionally, data

relating to physical site characteristics, physiographic and

topographic characteristics, edaphic and erosion factors, and

vegetation type and associated species were collected and discussed in

the status survey (Stebbins 1991). These environmental characteristics

are widely accepted as important information upon which to partially

determine habitat viability and suitability, and population threats.

Issue 12

Threats to Pseudobahia peirsonii from agriculture are opinions of

the author of the status survey and are not supported by facts.

Service Response

Historically, many populations of both species have probably been

lost to agriculture. Pseudobahia peirsonii is restricted to the heavy

clay soil type found in the valleys and flats which is used for row

crops and orchards. With increased irrigation, foothill areas also are

being converted for agriculture. Of the 30 historic populations of this

species surveyed in 1990, eight were found to have been extirpated due

to conversion of land use to agriculture (Stebbins 1991). Six remaining

populations are adjacent to farm land and may be converted to

agricultural use in the future. Several other sites currently are used

only for grazing, but also could face conversion to agriculture because

of proximity to active agricultural land.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and regulations (50 CFR part

424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set

forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists of

endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an

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

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

Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Bentham) Rydberg (Hartweg's golden sunburst)

and Pseudobahia peirsonii Munz (San Joaquin adobe sunburst) are as

follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii are restricted to specific habitats in nonnative

valley grassland and occasionally the grassland-woodland ecotone of the

San Joaquin Valley and neighboring foothills. The primary threat facing

the two plants is ongoing and threatened destruction and adverse

modification of their habitat. The habitat of the two species is being

threatened or eliminated primarily by residential development. Ag-land

development, a flood control project, competition from nonnative

plants, incompatible grazing practices, mining, recreational activities

(including ORVs), transmission line maintenance, road maintenance, and

other human impacts pose threats to these species.

Urbanization and ag-land development eliminated the type locality

in Yuba County, the only documented occurrence of this plant in the

Sacramento Valley. The species likely was extirpated in the area

between Stanislaus and Yuba counties before other collections were

documented, as valley soils in this area were rapidly converted to

agricultural use in the late 1800's (Stebbins 1991). Pseudobahia

bahiifolia is now known only from 16 sites in two localized areas in

the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley--the Friant region in

Madera and Fresno counties, and the Cooperstown-La Grange region in

Stanislaus County (CNDDB 1996). Habitat alteration from residential

development, ag-land development, ORVs, and mining threatens

populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia in all three counties.

Two historical occurrences of Pseudobahia bahiifolia have been

eliminated or seriously degraded in Madera County by conversion to

orchards, mining, unauthorized dumping, and grazing. The remaining

populations in Madera County are threatened by residential development.

The Madera County General Plan states that the proposed permitted

residential development in that county will likely result in the

complete elimination or significant degradation of the two populations

that occur in Madera County (Madera County Planning Department 1995).

These populations represent approximately half of all Pseudobahia

bahiifolia plants. Habitat supporting the plants is proposed to be

replaced by low density residential housing. In addition, these Madera

County occurrences are threatened by quarry activities and ORV use

(Stebbins 1991). The largest of these two populations, containing

approximately 16,000 plants, is located 0.3 km (0.2 mi) north of a

pumicite quarry. Ongoing quarry operations and associated ORV use may

damage this population, which likely represents a fragment of an even

larger population that once occurred west of Cottonwood Creek and east

of State Route 145, north of the San Joaquin River at Friant Bridge.

Off road vehicle use occurs throughout the area (Stebbins 1991). A

similar quarry in Stanislaus County is located 0.4 km (0.25 mi) east of

the second largest population of Pseudobahia bahiifolia. Although there

are no current plans to expand either mining operation, the threat of

expansion is dependent on product demand.

In Fresno County, one population grows on three land parcels, two

of which are protected. One parcel is jointly managed by the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation and The Nature Conservancy and one parcel is

protected by conservation easement. The third parcel is in private

ownership and is threatened by incompatible grazing practices and

residential development. The other Fresno County population occurs

entirely on private lands. Both privately-held Fresno County

occurrences are threatened by urbanization associated with the

``Millerton New Town'' development, the Friant Redevelopment Plan,

incompatible grazing practices, and water tank access and maintenance

(Stebbins 1991).

In the Cooperstown-La Grange area of Stanislaus County, three of

the remaining 12 occurrences are variously threatened by ORV,

incompatible grazing practices, erosion resulting from over grazing,

potential quarry expansion, and ag-land development (Stebbins 1991). At

one of the three threatened sites, habitat was present but no

Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants were found during the 1990 survey. The

remaining nine populations, all of which occur on private land, are

small, containing less than 250 plants each. Although the populations

appear to be stable under current grazing practices, they may suffer if

grazing pressures or land use is changed.

Pseudobahia peirsonii is known from 36 sites in Fresno, Tulare, and

Kern counties (Stebbins 1991; K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993; M.

Mebane, in litt. 1993; CNDDB, 1996). Habitat loss and alteration from

increased urbanization are the primary threats to Pseudobahia

peirsonii. Transmission line maintenance, ag-land development, water

projects, inappropriate grazing practices, and road construction and

maintenance also threaten populations of this species. These activities

collectively have reduced the species to a small number of isolated

colonies that occur in three areas in three counties in the

southeastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley--the Round Mountain

region in Fresno County, the Porterville-Fountain Springs region in

Tulare County, and the Pine Mountain-Woody

[[Page 5548]]

region in Kern County. Ag-land development, urbanization, flooding and

shore erosion at Lake Success, recreational activities, grazing, and

water projects have extirpated eight historical occurrences, all of

which were in Tulare County.

Until recently, two of the largest known populations of Pseudobahia

peirsonii, comprising approximately 34 percent of all plants of this

species, were found in Fresno County. Both populations have now been

impacted by habitat alteration. The largest population, containing

approximately 5,000 plants spread over 1.2 hectares (ha) (3 acres

(ac)), is being impacted by a large, residential project (Quail Lakes)

and an adjacent, recreational water park (Clovis Lakes). The Quail

Lakes project, currently under construction, consists of a 20.4 ha (51-

ac) lake and 730 housing units spread over 152 ha (375 ac) (Valley

Planning Consultants, Inc. 1993, EIP 1993). Part of the mitigation for

the project includes preservation of the two highest density of four

subpopulations of Pseudobahia peirsonii on the site and the

establishment of a third new subpopulation using topsoil salvaged from

an area to be destroyed. The salvaged topsoil would be planted with

seeds collected from a high density population eliminated by the

project. The success of the proposed mitigation is unknown. Frequently,

propagation of rare species is not successful. In a study funded by

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the success of 40

projects attempting to transplant, relocate, or reintroduce endangered

or threatened plant species in California, was evaluated; only 20

percent of the projects were deemed fully successful (Fiedler 1991).

The second largest population of Pseudobahia peirsonii, also

located in Fresno County, had nearly 4,500 plants spread over 17 ha (42

ac), and was located in the Fancher Creek Reservoir Project Area. The

Fancher Creek Reservoir Project was constructed several years ago by

the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District to temporarily detain

water during flood periods. which it has done at various times over the

past two years. The project was predicted to impact approximately 40

percent of this population (Jones and Stokes 1990). The three other

Fresno County sites are threatened variously by the proposed

residential expansion in the greater Fresno area, ag-land development,

incompatible grazing practices, competition from nonnative plants, and

livestock trampling (Stebbins 1991).

Most Tulare County populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii lie in the

Porterville-Fountain Springs area, although several small, isolated

populations recently have been discovered in the northern part of the

county (K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993). Maintenance and repair

of the Southern California Edison transmission lines pose a potential

threat to two Tulare County populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii

located under the transmission line right-of-way south of Fountain

Springs. Another population, located near the high water line at Lake

Success east of Porterville could be impacted or extirpated by

inundation or erosion resulting from a rise in water level. Although

the Corps has no current plans to increase water storage, such a

project has been proposed in the recent past.

Numerous other human impacts threaten populations of Pseudobahia

peirsonii. In Fresno County, potentially harmful runoff from State

Route 180 may impact a population growing on both sides of the highway

on the soft shoulder (Stebbins 1991). Road stabilization and

maintenance practices threaten four populations in Kern County, three

in Tulare County, and two in Fresno County (Stebbins 1991; K. and G.

Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; CNDDB 1996). Off road vehicle use and

hiking threaten one population of approximately 200 plants spread over

1.2 ha (3 ac) in Tulare County.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. There are no known significant existing or

potential threats to Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii

as a result of these activities. However, the increased publicity

associated with proposing these species may make them attractive to

researchers and collectors of rare plants.

C. Disease or predation. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia

peirsonii have been subjected to various levels of livestock grazing.

Several populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii appear to be stable under

the current grazing practices on their sites (CNDDB 1996). Stebbins

(1991) concluded that moderate levels of grazing help to control the

aggressive nonnative forbs and grasses against which Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii must compete in their respective

habitat areas. Others have also noted that livestock grazing appears to

be compatible and possibly beneficial to Pseudobahia peirsonii if

managed properly, and that the biggest threat to the species comes not

from routine and moderate grazing practices, but from land conversion

or extensive overgrazing of the population sites (K. and G.

Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; R. Hansen, in litt., 1993; T. Mallory, in

litt., 1993). Both Pseudobahia species may benefit, in particular, from

a reduction of grazing levels during flowering and fruiting in March

and April. Excessive trampling of the plants by livestock may also be

detrimental because of direct and indirect effects of soil compaction

on soil-water relations and erosion. One historical occurrence in

Tulare County of Pseudobahia peirsonii is thought to have been

extirpated by incompatible grazing practices (Stebbins 1991).

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Nearly all

populations of both plants occur entirely on private land. State and

Federal laws are limited in their ability to regulate potentially

detrimental human activities on private property (Clausen 1989). For

example, local zoning ordinances in the five counties in which both

species occur, do not regulate the conversion of open rangeland to ag-

land. Under the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Chapter 10

Sec. 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) and California

Endangered Species Act of 1984 (Chapter 1.5 Sec. 2050 et seq.), the

California Fish and Game Commission has listed both Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii as endangered (14 California Code

of Regulations Section 670.2). Though both statutes prohibit the

``take'' of State-listed plants (Chapter 10 Sec. 1908 and Chapter 1.5

Sec. 2080), State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat

modification or land use change by the landowner. After the CDFG

notifies a landowner that a State-listed plant grows on his or her

property, State law requires only that the landowner notify the agency

``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow

possible salvage of such plant.'' (Chapter 10 Sec. 1913).

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full

public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed

projects. The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over

the project is designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for

conducting a review of the project and consulting with other agencies

concerned with resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the

CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a project has the

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

endangered plant or animal.'' Once significant impacts are identified,

the project agency has the option to require mitigation for effects

through changes in the project or to decide that overriding

considerations

[[Page 5549]]

make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects may be

approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as

destruction of endangered species. Protection of listed species through

CEQA is therefore at the discretion of the project agency involved.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The typical variation in rainfall characteristics of the

regional climate very likely will subject populations of both species

to periodic drought, which may threaten the remaining small, marginal

populations of both species. Marginal habitat conditions and past

disturbances could exacerbate already critically low population sizes

and decrease the amount and/or viability of stored seed banks for both

species. Annuals and other monocarpic plants (individuals that die

after flowering and fruiting), like both species considered herein, may

be more vulnerable to random fluctuations or variation (stochasticity)

in annual weather patterns and other environmental factors than plant

species with different life histories (Huenneke et al. 1986). Fifty

percent of all populations of both species have been observed with

fewer than 100 plants, which may make them more vulnerable to random

chance extirpation (Stebbins 1991, K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt.

1993). Moreover, nonnative species germinate in late fall and likely

outcompete Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii for

sunlight, nutrients, and water. Competition from nonnative plants

threatens the Pseudobahia bahiifolia population at the botanical

preserve in Fresno County (Rosalie Faubion, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

pers. comm. 1992). Competition from nonnative plants also threatens

four occurrences of Pseudobahia peirsonii in Tulare County (Stebbins

1991, K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993). The invasion of nonnative

plants likely has been a significant factor in the degradation of the

habitat of both plants throughout their respective ranges (Heady 1977,

Amme and Pitschel 1989).

The Service has assessed carefully the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by both species in determining to make this rule

final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list

Pseudobahia bahiifolia as endangered and Pseudobahia peirsonii as

threatened. Both species occupy specific habitat within a restricted

geographic area. All remaining populations of both species are

considered to occur in marginal or degraded habitat (J. Stebbins, pers.

comm. 1993). Remaining habitat is highly fragmented and most remaining

populations are quite small. The largest populations of both species

are imminently threatened by residential development. In addition, a

significant portion of the remaining range of both species is

threatened by ag-land development, a flood control project, mining,

grazing, and competition from nonnative species.

Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants occur in two

general locations. One site, approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) long and

containing about 16,000 plants, is the remnant of one large population

that now has become fragmented. This occurrence, representing

approximately half of all plants of this species, is proposed to be

eliminated by a residential development project. The second large

population contains approximately 15,000 plants and is located 0.4 km

(0.25 mi) from a quarry. Although there are no current plans to expand

the quarry, the threat of quarry expansion is dependent on product

demand. Moreover, degradation from off-road vehicle use on these sites

is on-going. Grazing occurs at both locations and appears to be

accelerating soil erosion at the smaller site. Neither of these two

sites is protected.

Over 80 percent of Pseudobahia peirsonii plants occur at 4 sites;

32 additional smaller sites contain 1,000 plants or fewer. The Quail

Lakes population, largest of all known populations with 18 percent of

the total plant population, is being impacted by urban development. The

second largest population, with 16 percent of the total plant

population, lies in the Fancher Creek Flood Control Project area. This

project, completed several years ago, was predicted to impact 40

percent of the population. Gradual conversion of range land in eastern

San Joaquin Valley to residential use also threatens the species (J.

Stebbins pers. comm. 1996). Anthropogenic actions have degraded and

reduced the habitat of most of the remaining populations. As a result,

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is in danger of extinction and Pseudobahia

peirsonii is likely to become in danger of extinction within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their

ranges.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) 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

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

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

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

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to

bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no

longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent

prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat

concurrently with determining a species to be endangered or threatened.

The Service finds that the determination of critical habitat is not

prudent for either species at this time. Because the two species face

numerous anthropogenic threats (see Factor A, Factor C, and Factor E in

the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'') and occur

predominantly on private land, the publication of precise maps and

descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register would make

both plants more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism and, therefore,

could contribute to the decline of the two plants. The listing of these

species also publicizes the rarity of the plants and, thus, may make

them attractive to researchers or collectors of rare plants. The proper

agencies will be notified of the location and importance of protecting

the habitat of both species. Protection of both species' habitat will

be addressed through the recovery process and through the section 7

consultation process.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

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

and individuals. The Act provides for land acquisition and cooperation

with the State and requires that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. Such actions are initiated by the Service following

listing. The protection required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants are

discussed, in part, below.

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

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

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

any is being designated. Regulations implementing

[[Page 5550]]

this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50

CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to

confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

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

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

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

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

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

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Federal involvement for these species is expected to include the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates, as part of the Central

Valley Project, the Friant-Kern canal system located within 0.4 km

(0.25 mile) of six Pseudobahia bahiifolia and two Pseudobahia peirsonii

populations. In addition, the Corps operates the facilities at Lake

Success located within 0.8 km (0.50 mi) of three Pseudobahia peirsonii

colonies and sponsored the Redbank-Fancher Creek Flood Control Project,

which currently impacts another Pseudobahia peirsonii colony near Round

Mountain. Any future construction or maintenance activities on these

government projects that may affect the plant populations, as well as

water contract renewals, would require section 7 consultation with the

Service. The Service may develop, in cooperation with other

knowledgeable parties, grazing recommendations for habitats supporting

the two species. The goal of the recommendations would be to encourage

grazing practices which, if implemented, would benefit growth and

reproduction of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii.

A Pseudobahia bahiifolia population in Fresno County is provided

some protection on one parcel by joint management by The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) and the Bureau of Reclamation, and on a second parcel

by a conservation easement between a private landowner and TNC. This

site is difficult to protect, however, because of its proximity to

residential housing, the Friant-Kern Canal, and a Friant water tank.

The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61,

17.62, and 17.63 for endangered plant species and 17.71 and 17.72 for

threatened plant species set forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all endangered or threatened plants. With

respect to Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii, all trade

prohibitions of sections 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR

17.61 or 17.71, would apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

to import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in

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

sell or offer for sale these species in interstate or foreign commerce;

or remove and reduce to possession these species from areas under

Federal jurisdiction. Other prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act

make it illegal to maliciously damage or destroy any such plant species

on any area under Federal jurisdiction; or to remove, cut, dig up,

damage, or destroy any such plant species on any other area in knowing

violation of any State law or regulation or in the course of any

violation of a State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions can

apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. The Act

and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also provides for the issuance of

permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving

endangered or threatened plant species under certain circumstances. The

Service anticipates few trade permits would ever be sought or issued

for the two species because the plants are not common in cultivation or

in the wild.

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. Populations of both species occur on Federal lands.

Collection, damage, or destruction of the two species on Federal lands

is prohibited, although, in appropriate cases, a Federal endangered

species permit may be issued to allow collection for scientific or

recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal lands would

constitute a violation of California State laws or regulations.

California law requires a ten day notice be given before taking of

plants on private land. Activities, such as landscape maintenance, and

clearing vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock grazing on privately-

owned lands not under Federal funding or authorization, would not be

considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.

Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a

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

the Service's Sacramento Field Office. Requests for copies of the

regulations on plants and inquires regarding them may be addressed to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Endangered

Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

(phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental

Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the

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

prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section

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

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

(48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork

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

requirements. 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, Sacramento Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this rule is Elizabeth Warne, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, 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 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in

alphabetical order under [FLOWERING PLANTS], to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

[[Page 5551]]

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Family Status When Critical Special rules

Scientific name Common name listed habitat

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

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *

Pseudobahia bahiifolia.......... Hartweg's golden U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... E 609 NA NA

sunburst.

Pseudobahia peirsonii........... San Joaquin adobe U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... T 609 NA NA

sunburst.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: December 5, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97-2875 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P