Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Four Plants From the Foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC99

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for Four Plants From the Foothills of the Sierra

Nevada Mountains in California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines threatened

status for Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea), Calyptridium

puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia springvillensis (Springville

clarkia), and Verbena californica (California vervain) pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These four plants are

known from serpentine, clay, or granitic soils in the southwestern

foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California. These

plants are variously threatened by one or more of the following:

urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, off-highway vehicle use,

recreational placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and/or

trampling, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. These species are also

vulnerable to extirpations from random events due to small number and

size of populations, and/or small range of the species. A notice of

withdrawal of the proposal to list Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill

onion), Carpenteria californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata

(Greenhorn adobe lily), Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa

lupine), Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia

setiloba (Piute Mountain navarretia) is being published concurrently

with this final rule.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 14, 1998.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Fuller or Dwight Harvey (see

ADDRESSES section) telephone number 916/979-2725; facsimile 916/979-

2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposed

rule (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea) and

Calyptridium puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws) as endangered, and Clarkia

springvillensis (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica

(California vervain) as threatened on October 4, 1994. Also included in

the proposed rule were Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine)

and Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) as endangered, and

Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria californica

(carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily), and

Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain navarretia) to be listed as

threatened. The Service has determined that the threats to the latter

six taxa are insufficient to warrant listing, and is publishing a

withdrawal notice for these six taxa concurrently with this final rule.

This final rule discusses the final determination to list four species

as threatened.

Robert Hoover (1938) first described Brodiaea pallida based on

specimens collected near Chinese Camp in Tuolumne County. Brodiaea

pallida is an erect, herbaceous perennial plant belonging to the lily

family (Liliaceae). Brodiaea pallida grows from underground bulbs to a

height of 1 to 3 decimeters (dm) (4 to 12 inches (in)), and has long,

narrow, thick, succulent leaves. Several to many rose-pink flowers

appear in an umbrella-like cluster at the top of a leafless stem in

late May to early June. Brodiaea pallida grows in association with, and

can hybridize with, B. elegans ssp. elegans (Skinner and Pavlick 1994).

Brodiaea pallida can be distinguished from B. elegans ssp. elegans by

the corolla being constricted mid-way to form a strongly recurved

waist, the color of the corolla, and the non-pollen bearing stamens

(staminodia) being held close to the stamens. Brodiaea pallida grows in

overflow channels and seeps and springs in clays derived from

serpentine soils. The Service is not listing hybrids of B. pallida and

B. elegans ssp. elegans. The entire range of B. pallida is a 3 to 6

meter (m) (10 to 20 feet (ft)) wide and 0.8 kilometer (km) (0.5 mile

(mi)) long stretch of an intermittent stream channel at an elevation of

385 m (1,260 ft). The entire population of B. pallida is scattered over

an estimated 26 hectares (ha) (65 acres (ac)) (California Natural

Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1997), all of which is privately owned.

Because of the complex nature of B. pallida reproduction (spreading via

shoots and suckers), the number of individuals in the population is

unknown. Despite purposeful surveys for this species in other nearby

areas, the species has been found only at this

[[Page 49023]]

site. The sole population is threatened by urbanization and inadequate

regulatory mechanisms, however the immediacy of these threats has

remained unchanged for the last 10-12 years. This species is also

vulnerable to extirpation from random events due to the small range of

the species.

Joseph Congdon collected the type specimen of Calyptridium

pulchellum on ``Pea Ridge''' in Mariposa County in 1901. Alice Eastwood

(1902) first described this plant as Spraguea pulchella. Robert Hoover

(1940) revised the genera Spraguea and Calyptridium and renamed this

plant Calyptridium pulchellum based upon vegetative organization and

habitat. Calyptridium pulchellum is a small, compact, rosette forming,

annual herb belonging to the purslane family (Portulacaceae). The

smooth, slender, prostrate stems are 1 to 2 dm (4 to 8 in) long. The

spatula-shaped leaves have smooth surfaces. Rose-colored, four-petaled

flowers appear in loose panicles between May and August. This fibrous

rooted plant grows in small, barren areas on decomposed granitic sands,

between 460 and 1,090 m (1,500 to 3,600 ft) in the annual grasslands

and woodlands in the southwestern foothills of the Sierra Nevada

Mountains. The seven populations in six locations are estimated to

occupy a total of only 6 ha (14 ac) in Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa

counties over a range of about 64 km (40 mi) (CNDDB 1997). Six of the

seven populations occur on private land. Five of these populations are

marginal in quality and contain fewer than 300 plants (Ann

Mendershausen, Mariposa Resource Conservation District, pers. comm.

1997; CNDDB 1997). The sixth population on private land has about 900

plants (CNDDB 1997). The seventh population of C. pulchellum, occurs on

lands administered by the Sierra National Forest and is fenced to

protect it from livestock trampling and grazing (James Boynton and

Joanna Clines Sierra National Forest, in litt., 1993). Calyptridium

pulchellum is threatened with urbanization. Due to the few populations

and low numbers, the species is susceptible to extirpation from random

events.

Frank Vasek (1964) described Clarkia springvillensis based on his

collection along Balch Park Road, the type locality, near Springville.

Clarkia springvillensis is an erect annual herb in the evening primrose

family (Onagraceae). The 1 m (3 ft) tall plant has simple or usually

branched stems. The bright green leaves are 2 to 9 centimeters (cm)

(0.8 to 3.5 in) long and 5 to 20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in)

broad. The lavender-pink flowers appear in May to July and usually have

a dark purplish basal spot. Clarkia springvillensis can be separated

from the co-occurring C. unguiculata by the absence of long hairs on

the calyx and ovary, the purple sepals, and the dark purplish spot at

the base of the petals. Clarkia springvillensis is found on granitic

soils in sunny sites from 360 to 910 m (1,220 to 3,000 ft) in

elevation. Clarkia springvillensis grows mostly on the uphill slope of

roadbanks, on small decomposing granitic domes, and in openings within

the blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland community in the foothills of

the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of Tulare County, where 15

populations occur. Collectively, the populations are estimated to

occupy a total of 61 ha (150 ac) (CNDDB 1997). All but one of the 15

populations are found within about a 24 km (15) mi range, with the

remaining population occurring 26 km (16 mi) to the northwest. One site

is partially protected by the CDFG, one is on Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) land, eight are on U.S. Forest Service land, and five are on

private land. With the variability typical of an annual plant, six

populations of C. springvillensis have ranged from 20 to 200 plants.

Four populations along roadsides have become restricted to a narrow

band just above a zone of herbicide use and just below heavily grazed

terrain. The largest population of this plant occurs on the 1.8 ha (4.5

ac) preserve owned by the CDFG. The status of C. springvillensis is

stable to declining according to the CDFG (CDFG 1995). Clarkia

springvillensis is threatened by urban development, inadequate

regulatory mechanisms, heavy livestock grazing, and roadway maintenance

activities. Due to its few populations and low numbers, C.

springvillensis is vulnerable to extirpation from random events.

Harold A. Moldenke (1942) described Verbena californica from

specimens collected by Robert Hoover from an area north of Keystone in

Tuolumne County. Verbena californica is an erect perennial herb

belonging to the vervain family (Verbenaceae). Verbena californica

grows to 60 cm (23 in) in height and has opposite, bright green,

stalkless (sessile) leaves. White-blue to purple blossoms appear in May

through September. Verbena californica grows in nine populations

between 260 and 335 m (850 to 1,150 ft) in elevation. The populations

are restricted to intermittent and perennial streams within serpentine

areas of the Red Hills of Tuolumne County. The entire range of the

species is about 16 km (10 mi). Within this narrow range, the total

area occupied by the populations is estimated to be 36 ha (90 ac)

(CNDDB 1997). Eight of the nine populations occur in drainages that

feed into Don Pedro Reservoir; five of these eight are on Six Bit Gulch

and its tributaries. The ninth population is on Andrew Creek that feeds

into Tullock Reservoir (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). Four of the nine

populations are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM

lands, although these six sites contain only 15 percent of Verbena

californica plants. The remaining 85 percent of Verbena californica

plants are on private lands. When last surveyed, two populations were

estimated to contain several thousand plants each, four populations

were estimated to contain 200 to 500 plants each, and the remaining

three populations were estimated to contain fewer than 100 plants each

(CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). The two largest populations, at Andrew Creek

and Big Creek, occur entirely or primarily on private lands (CDFG 1993,

CNDDB 1997). Verbena californica is threatened by urbanization,

recreational placer gold mining, off-highway vehicle use (OHV),

inadequate regulatory mechanisms, dumping, and heavy grazing and

trampling. Due to the few populations and low numbers, it is also

vulnerable to extirpation from random events.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result

of section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be

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

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

January 9, 1975, and included Brodiaea pallida as endangered. The

Service published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR

27823) of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian Institution

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

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

intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named therein.

Brodiaea pallida was included in the July 1, 1975, notice. On June 16,

1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register (41 FR

24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be

endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list of 1,700

plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and data received by

the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House

Document No. 94-

[[Page 49024]]

51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. Brodiaea pallida

and Calyptridium puchellum were included as endangered in the June 16,

1976, Federal Register document.

General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were

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

17909). The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all

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

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

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

notice of withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, proposal, along with four

other proposals that had expired.

The Service published an updated Notice of Review for plants on

December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Brodiaea pallida,

Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena

californica as category 1 candidates. Category 1 species were those for

which the Service had on file substantial information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.

On November 28, 1983, the Service published in the Federal Register

a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640) in which Brodiaea

pallida and Verbena californica were designated as category 1

candidates for Federal listing. This supplement also changed Clarkia

springvillensis and Calyptridium puchellum to category 2. Category 2

included taxa for which information in the possession of the Service

indicated that a listing proposal was possibly appropriate, but for

which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not

available to support a proposed rule. On February 28, 1996, the Service

published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that

discontinued the designation of category 2 species as candidates.

The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR

39526). The status of these four plants remained unchanged from the

1983 supplement. Another revision of the plant notice was published on

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision, Clarkia

springvillensis was returned to category 1 status. On September 30,

1993, the Service published another notice and the status of the

species remained unchanged (58 FR 51144).

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

certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their

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

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

newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Brodiaea pallida

because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted as a petition. On

October 13, 1983, the Service found that the petitioned listing of

these species was warranted, but precluded by other pending listing

actions, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act;

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

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

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

of 1984 through 1993.

On October 4, 1994, the Service published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium

pulchellum, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, and Mimulus shevockii as

endangered and Allium tuolumnense, Clarkia springvillensis, Carpenteria

californica, Fritillaria striata, Navarretia setiloba, and Verbena

californica as threatened. This proposed rule constituted the warranted

finding for Brodiaea pallida.

Based upon information received during public comment periods

subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service now

determines Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia

springvillensis, and Verbena californica to be threatened species. The

proposed listing of Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica,

Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii,

and Navarretia setiloba is being withdrawn by the Service as announced

in a separate Federal Register notice published concurrently with this

final rule.

The processing of this final rule follows the Service's fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 listing priority guidance published in the Federal

Register on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance establishes the

order in which the Service will process rulemakings. The guidance calls

for giving highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1)

and second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of

outstanding proposed listings. Processing critical habitat

determinations is included in Tier 3 of the guidance. This final rule

is a Tier 2 action and is being completed in accordance with the

current listing priority guidance.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the October 4, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 50540) and associated

notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information that might contribute to development of a final

rule. Appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, County and City

governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties

were contacted and requested to provide comments. Newspaper notices

inviting public comment were published in the Bakersfield Californian

and Porterville Recorder on October 10, 1994, and the Fresno Bee and

Tuolumne Union Democrat on October 25, 1994. The comment period closed

on December 5, 1994.

As a result of receiving seven requests for one or more public

hearings, the Service reopened and extended the comment period until

February 13, 1995 (59 FR 67268). The Service held informational

meetings with interested parties about the proposed rule in Fresno on

January 25, 1995, in Visalia on January 26, 1995, and in Bakersfield on

January 27, 1995. On January 31, 1995, the Service conducted a public

hearing in Bakersfield. The Service received three requests to postpone

or delay the public hearing and three additional requests to extend the

comment period beyond February 13, 1995. Responding to these requests,

the Service extended the comment period until June 4, 1995 (60 FR

8342). From April 1995, through April 1997, the Service was under a

congressionally imposed moratorium on final listings. The Service

reopened the comment period on February 4, 1997, (62 FR 5199) and again

on June 30, 1997, (62 FR 35116) to update and clarify information

received during the three prior comment periods.

The Service has reviewed all the comments received during the four

comment periods. General comments received on all ten taxa included in

the proposed rule, and specific comments on the four taxa for which the

Service has determined that listing is appropriate are addressed in

this final rule. Specific comments pertaining to the six taxa being

withdrawn (Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria

californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily),

Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine), Mimulus shevockii

(Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain

navarretia)) are addressed in a separate Federal Register notice

published concurrently with this rule.

[[Page 49025]]

The Service received 525 comments (i.e., letters, phone calls,

facsimiles, and oral testimony) from 164 individuals or agencies or

group representatives concerning the proposed rule. Seventy-one

commenters provided opposing comments, 39 commenters provided

supporting comments, and 54 commenters provided neutral comments. Of

the 525 comments, 310 were opposed to the proposed listing, 87

supported the listing, and 128 had no position regarding the proposed

listing. Several commenters provided additional information that, along

with other clarifications, has been incorporated into the

``Background'' or ``Summary of Factors'' sections of this final rule.

Opposing and technical comments have been organized into specific

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

as follows.

Issue 1--Insufficiency of Data

Comment: Several commenters stated that data used in the proposed

rule to list these ten plants was either inaccurate, insufficient,

inconsistent, erroneous, unsubstantiated, unverified, unjustified,

based only on biased opinions in favor of listing the species, not

peer-reviewed, or required additional research.

Service Response: Information used by the Service to list the

species was gathered from a variety of sources, including Federal and

State agencies, local governments, and private individuals, including

species experts and scientists. This information, and additional

information received during public comment periods, including those of

peer reviewers and comments received at public hearings, provide the

foundation for determining the final status of these ten plants. All

information received was carefully evaluated in accordance with the

interagency policy on information standards under the Act, published on

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271). Five of the seven independent species

experts that reviewed the proposed rule supported the listing of one or

more of the ten plant taxa. Criteria for what information may be

considered are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species'' section. As previously stated, this final rule concerns four

of the ten taxa proposed on October 4, 1994. The other six taxa are

addressed in a separate notice published concurrently with this final

rule.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the information on these

four plants was collected during drought years, and therefore, the data

were biased. Another commenter suggested that the Service extend the

comment period for another two or three growing seasons so more

information could be collected on the species in non-drought years.

Service Response: Professional and amateur botanists have known of

and searched for three of the four plants for decades. Brodiaea

pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, and Verbena californica were all

described prior to 1960 and were included in Philip Munz and David

Keck's, ``A California Flora of California, 1959.'' The first State-

wide inventory of rare plants was assembled by the California Native

Plant Society (CNPS) in 1974. Monitoring efforts on the locations and

habitats of the four plants have been more consistent since this time.

Continuing inventory efforts have not been conducted on all populations

of the four plants in all years over the last twenty years. However,

site visits to locations of populations of these plants have been

undertaken in both drought and non-drought years, as discussed in the

``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section. Under section

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Service is required to make its

determination upon the best available scientific and commercial data.

The Service is neither required, funded, nor authorized to conduct

further surveys for these species, and concludes that the best

available information is sufficient to support the listing of these

species under the Act.

Comment: Several commenters stated that data were, or may have

been, collected by trespass and questioned the legality and

admissibility of the data under those circumstances.

Service Response: Among the information sources used by the Service

is the information from the CNDDB, a part of the California Department

of Fish and Game (CDFG). The data comprising the CNDDB and data at the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office is checked for accuracy, but

whether or not observers obtained written or verbal permission to visit

private land is not investigated. Many of the older observations may

predate the more recent heightened sensitivity of landowners to

individuals searching for rare plants on their property. Neither the

Service nor the CDFG condone trespassing.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did

not collect information from ranchers and that the information to list

the four plants may not be accurate without this information.

Service Response: The Service collected and has used the best

scientific and commercially information available from Federal, State

and local agencies, species experts, ecologists, botanists, and

interested individuals in the preparation of the proposed and final

rules, consistent with section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. A list of all

data sources and information used to formulate the proposed and final

rules are available from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon

request. The Service participated in two informal information exchange

meetings with State and County representatives and private landowning

ranchers in Bakersfield, California, to discuss the importance,

usefulness, and thresholds of useful information during the fourth

comment period and received information from ranchers during all

comment periods. Some of this information pertained to specific or

general locational references and has been incorporated into this final

rule.

Issue 2--Species Are Not Threatened or Threats Are Not Substantiated

Comment: Several commenters stated that some of the species are

more common than indicated in the proposed rule, or some, if not all of

the species are not threatened by one or more factors across the range

of the species. One commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis is

not threatened by urbanization, timber operations, or road maintenance

across its range. Another commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis

is more widespread than is indicated in the proposed rule.

Service Response: The Service has reviewed all the information and

comments from many sources and has determined that logging does not

pose a significant threat to Clarkia springvillensis. Urbanization

poses a threat to C. springvillensis on private lands, but not to those

populations found on public lands. Road maintenance threatens the

species at four of its 15 locations. Additional information regarding

threats to the species are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species'' section of this document. The Service has

determined that each of these four taxa meets the definition of a

threatened species under the Act. A list of all data sources and

information used to formulate the proposed and final rules are

available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon request.

Issue 3--Economic Effects of Listing

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that listing may limit,

curtail, or impinge on the existing uses of private property, or that

listing would result in the loss of management opportunities on private

lands as well as the loss of economic productivity of those lands.

[[Page 49026]]

Service Response: The Act does not restrict the damage or

destruction of listed plants due to otherwise lawful private activities

on private land beyond any level of protection that may be provided

under State law. Listing the four plants as threatened or endangered

will not regulate logging, farming, or ranching operations, including

cattle grazing, on private land. Other activities that do not violate

the taking prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, as well as

prohibited activities, are discussed further under ``Available

Conservation Measures'' section of this rule.

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service should

consider the economic effects of the listing on the local economies and

industries in the counties where the plants occur.

Service Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listing

determination must be based solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available about whether a species meets the Acts

definition of a threatened or endangered species. The legislative

history of this provision clearly states the intent of Congress to

``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based solely on biological

criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from affecting

such decisions,'' H.R. Rep. NO. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 19

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

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

applying economics to the determinations made under section 4 of the

Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of the word

``solely'' in the legislation,'' H.R. Rep. NO. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2nd

Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is precluded from considering

economic impacts, in a final decision on a proposed listing, the

Service does not examine such impacts.

Comment: One commenter stated that listing may result in

``takings'' of private property and therefore the Service should

complete a Takings Implications Assessment.

Service Response: The U.S. Attorney General has issued guidelines

to the Department of the Interior (Department) on the implementation of

Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.'' Under these guidelines, a

special rule applies when an agency within the Department is required

by law to act without exercising its usual discretion. The provisions

in the guidelines relating to non-discretionary actions clearly are

applicable to the determination of endangered or threatened status for

the four plants in this rule.

In this context, an agency's actions might be subject to legal

challenge if it did not consider or act upon economic data. In these

cases, the Attorney General's guidelines state that Takings

Implications Assessments (TIA) will be prepared after, rather than

before, the agency makes the decision upon which its discretion is

restricted. The purpose of TIAs in these special circumstances is to

inform policy makers of areas where unavoidable takings exposures

exist. Such TIAs shall not be considered in the making of

administrative decisions that must, by law, be made without regard to

their economic impact. In enacting the Act, Congress required the

Department to list species based solely upon scientific and commercial

data indicating whether they are in danger of extinction. Thus, by law

and U.S. Attorney guidelines, the Service cannot conduct such TIA's

prior to listing.

Issue 4--Designation of Critical Habitat

Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service needed to

designate critical habitat, and had no prudent basis for refusal to do

so.

Service Response: The Service has determined that critical habitat

for these four species is not prudent. Please refer to the ``Critical

Habitat'' section of this rule for a detailed discussion of the

Service's basis for not designating critical habitat at this time.

Comment: One commenter stated that the Service needed to designate

critical habitat to help locate populations and verify data. Another

commenter disagreed with the Service that the designation of critical

habitat and subsequent publication of critical habitat maps would cause

vandalism to the plants.

Service Response: Protection that these species will receive as a

result of listing is discussed under ``Available Conservation

Measures'' portion of this rule. The public has access to general

locational information on all four of these plants through the CDFG's

CNDDB. The Service considers the risk of malicious damage to most of

these plants to be relatively small, especially for the species that

are inconspicuous. Please refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section of

this rule for a detailed discussion of the Service's reasons for not

designating critical habitat at this time.

Issue 5--Recovery Planning

Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should not list

these four species without a recovery plan. Another commenter stated

that the lack of a recovery plan hampers a county's ability to provide

adequate protection measures for these species. One commenter stated

that the Service could not prepare a recovery plan without an economic

assessment.

Service Response: The recovery planning process typically occurs

after the species has been listed and provides recovery objectives and

criteria to delist the species. The recovery planning process will

involve species experts, scientists, and interested members of the

public in accordance with interagency policy on recovery plans under

the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). The information and

public education needs for successful recovery of these species are

many and will be incorporated into the recovery plan. Economic

assessments are not part of the recovery planning process; however,

every recovery plan includes an estimate of the costs of all recovery

tasks identified in the plan.

Issue 6--National Environmental Policy Act and Information Availability

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service needed to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental

Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) on this rule.

Service Response: For reasons described in the NEPA section of this

document, the Service has determined that the rules issued pursuant to

section 4(a) of the Act do not require the preparation of an EIS. The

Federal courts have held in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657

f2d. 829 (6th Circuit 1981) that an EIS is not required for listing

under the Act. The court decision noted that preparing an EIS on

listing actions does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.

Comment: Several commenters wanted to personally view the evidence

used by the Service to list these plants, or specifically wanted to

know the names of individuals who conducted site visits or provided

peer review for the proposed rule.

Service Response: A full administrative record of the information

considered in the proposed and final rules for these species is

available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Issue 7--Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the existing regulatory

measures available through State, Federal and local laws, rules and

regulations provide adequate protection for the four species to be

listed in this

[[Page 49027]]

rule. Other commenters stated that the existing regulatory mechanisms

were not sufficient to protect the species included in this rule, and

therefore the listing should go forward to provide the protection

necessary for the continued existence of these species.

Service Response: The Service believes that the existing regulatory

mechanisms provided in the State, local and county regulations are

inadequate to protect these four plants. Please see Factor D of the

``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' section of this rule.

Issue 8--Grazing

Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing and/or trampling is

good for these species by promoting plant vigor, or creates a better

seedbed. One commenter stated that the Service holds the position that

all grazing is overgrazing. One commenter stated that other

environmental factors (e.g., rainfall) are more of an issue for these

species than grazing.

Service Response: The Service has no evidence to support the

general position that grazing is beneficial or detrimental for these

species. Numerous factors involved in livestock management and grazing

practices, such as season of use, intensity, duration, and stocking

levels, as well as varying climatic conditions, may affect these

species and/or their habitats. No available literature supports the

position that grazing is beneficial to these species. Site specific

observations and local extirpations suggest that heavy grazing may have

impacted some populations of these species. The Service does not hold

that all grazing is overgrazing, but rather that grazing at some

locations has had adverse impacts on the species considered in this

rule. Virtually all the information that the Service received or

located regarding beneficial and adverse livestock grazing effects on

the four taxa is anecdotal. However, repeated observations over time

coupled with knowledge of historical land uses has validity even though

that information was not scientifically collected. That kind of

information was provided for some of the locations for some of the taxa

in this rule. Based upon this information, it appears that some levels

of livestock grazing are compatible with, and may be beneficial to,

some of these species. Competition from alien grasses may pose a threat

to some of these species and grazing, to the extent that it can

alleviate such competition without eliminating or weakening a rare

plant population through direct consumption or trampling, or secondary

effects such as accelerated soil erosion, is compatible with rare

plants on many sites. The listing provisions of the Act provide that

species may be determined to be endangered or threatened species due to

one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the

Act. The effects of herbivory by any animal, including livestock, is

discussed under Factor C of the ``Disease and Predation'' section of

this rule.

Comment: Several commenters stated that threats associated with

livestock grazing were either false, purely speculative, or lacked any

scientific credence.

Service Response: During the preparation of this rule, the Service

evaluated site specific observations of known plant populations, and

reviewed an extensive body of literature on the impacts of grazing

mammals to plant species. Please refer to Factor C in the ``Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule for further

discussion on the effects of herbivory, including livestock grazing.

Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing of Clarkia

springvillensis is not a problem or that grazing is necessary for the

survival of the species.

Service Response: Grazing, in combination with other environmental

and human factors, have led to deleterious effects on the habitat of

Clarkia springvillensis. According to observers (Tim Holtsford and

Kimberlie McCue-Harvey, University of Missouri, in litt. 1993),

livestock grazing is damaging eight of the 15 known locations of this

species by direct consumption and trampling. The Service believes that

these effects, together with other threats discussed in ``Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species'' section support the determination of

threatened status for this species.

Issue 9--Alternative Status

Comment: Several commenters requested that the species considered

in this rule should either not be listed at this time, be listed with

an alternate status, withdrawn, delayed in listing, or retain current

status.

Service Response: Substantive information provided by commenters in

support of arguments for alternative listing status, including delay or

withdrawal, has been incorporated into this final rule and the

accompanying withdrawal notice. The Service believes there is

sufficient information to list these four species, and that the

appropriate determination of the status of each of these species has

been made. The Service has made these determinations based on

consideration of the best available information, in accordance with

section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Please refer to the ``Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species'' section of this rule regarding threats to

Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and

Verbena californica, and to the notice of withdrawal being published

concurrently with this rule [insert FR#] for information regarding

Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, Clarkia springvillensis,

Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii,

and Navarretia setiloba.

Issue 10--Lack of Regulatory Authority to List Plant Species

Comment: One commenter stated the Service lacks jurisdiction to

enact the proposed rule, and that the rule should be withdrawn since

there is no connection between regulation of these plants and a

substantial effect on ``interstate commerce.''

Service Response: The Service maintains that it does have the

authority to list plants such as those included in the proposed rule

pursuant to the Act. Several Federal court cases have confirmed this

authority (see e.g. National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt,

130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed (March 5,

1998)).

Peer Review

Consistent with the interagency policy on peer review published on

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited the expert opinions

of seven independent and appropriate specialists regarding pertinent

scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy,

population status, and supporting biological and ecological information

for the ten proposed plants. Five of the seven peer reviewers provided

comments. Not all reviewers commented on all of the taxa that were

proposed for listing. One reviewer supported the listing of all species

addressed in this rule, noted that each species is taxonomically

distinct, and commented that the low numbers of individuals in

populations make them especially susceptible to detrimental genetic

phenomena, including inbreeding depression and loss of genetic

variability. This reviewer characterized the population sizes of

Brodiaea pallida and Calyptridium pulchellum as ``perilously low'' and

the populations of Clarkia springvillensis and Verbena californica as

approaching that condition. A second reviewer also supported the

listing of all species addressed in this rule and commented

specifically on Brodiaea pallida,

[[Page 49028]]

Calyptridium pulchellum, and Clarkia springvillensis. The reviewer

noted that the restriction of Brodiaea pallida to a single population

and its ``dangerously low'' population size make it susceptible to

extinction by random events. The same reviewer also commented that

further reductions in populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and

Clarkia springvillensis may place them in danger of extinction by

random events. A third reviewer, who only addressed Calyptridium

pulchellum and Clarkia springvillensis, noted that each is

taxonomically distinct and of such limited range that listing is

warranted. A fourth reviewer provided information on the taxonomic

distinctiveness, ecology, and non-native competitors of Navarretia

setiloba, a species that is being withdrawn, and also emphasized the

importance of conserving the species. The fifth reviewer provided no

specific comments but supported the listing of all four taxa addressed

in this final rule.

Summary of the Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated

to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to

be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

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

application to Brodiaea pallida Hoover (Chinese Camp brodiaea),

Calyptridium puchellum (Eastwood) Hoover (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia

springvillensis Vasek (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica

Moldenke (California vervain) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis,

and Verbena californica are restricted to grassland and woodland

communities of the southwestern foothills of the central Sierra Nevada

Mountains. These four species have been variously impacted and face

future impacts from development projects and other human activities.

Historically, the only known population of Brodiaea pallida

extended up to 0.6 km (1 mi) south of the Red Hills Road; however,

large parts of the population were destroyed by non-permitted

construction around 1982 (Blaine Rogers, Columbia College, in litt.

1990; CNDDB 1997). A subdivision has been proposed for the remainder of

the site (B. Rogers, in litt. 1997; Pat Stone, CNPS, in litt. 1997).

The proposed subdivision divides some of the population into 2 ha (5

ac) parcels and would impact approximately one half of all the known

individual plants (P. Stone, in litt. 1994). No construction activity

has occurred since 1989 at the proposed subdivision that was believed

to threaten B. pallida. No construction activity is currently planned

at the site where the species occurs. Thus, in reassessing the threat

to the single population of Brodiaea pallida and recognizing that the

threat is less imminent than initially thought, the Service has

determined that threatened status is more appropriate for Brodiaea

pallida.

Two populations of Calyptridium puchellum occur on lots in the

midst of a subdivision (Ann Mendershausen, Mariposa County Resource

Conservation District, pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). This

subdivision had a vacancy rate of 23 percent as of March 1997 (David

Deel, Madera County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997) and

additional human impacts may occur to the two populations as the

subdivision fills to 100 percent occupancy. A third population of C.

pulchellum occurs in an area including commercial and residential

zoning adjacent to the location of the population (A. Mendershausen in

litt. 1995; Thomas Kidwell, Madera County Assessors Office, in litt.

1997; D. Deel, in litt. 1997). Although one subdivision was constructed

prior to the proposed rule, none of the proposed subdivisions that were

thought to threaten populations of C. pulchellum have been constructed

since the proposed rule was published in 1994. No construction

activities are planned at the sites where the species occurs. A fourth

population of C. pulchellum occurs on a ranch that is for sale (A.

Mendershausen pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). The populations of

Madera and Mariposa counties, where C. pulchellum occurs on private

lands, are expected to increase by 58 percent and 55 percent,

respectively, between 1996 and 2010 (California Department of Finance

1993, 1996). Thus, the Service has determined that the threats to

populations of Calyptridium puchellum from subdivisions are not as

imminent as first thought and has determined that threatened status is

more appropriate for Calyptridium puchellum.

Two populations of Clarkia springvillensis on the Sequoia National

Forest (CNDDB 1997) and three populations on non-Federal lands are

threatened by road maintenance activities such as grading and roadside

mowing (T. Holtsford, in litt. 1993, T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey,

in litt. 1993, CNDDB 1997). These five populations comprise more than

40 percent of the known acreage of C. springvillensis habitat (CNDDB

1997). Four of these five populations are small and have become

restricted to a narrow band above and/or below the part of the roadbank

that is not graded and above and/or below the heavily grazed terrain

across a fence adjacent to the roadway (CDFG 1990). Mowing usually

occurs when the grass turns golden, just when C. springvillensis begins

to flower (James Shevock, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1985). One of

the five sites is along a county road (County Road M-220) that is

graded infrequently by the Tulare County Public Works Department; the

plants extend to the edge of the road and are graded and buried

periodically (T. Holtsford, 1994 pers. comm.). At this same site, C.

springvillensis appears to be threatened by the Public Works Department

dumping of sand (T. Holtsford, pers. comm. 1994).

A sixth population of Clarkia springvillensis, on private land, is

threatened by development (Andrew Pacheco, Tulare County Planning

Department, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). Zoning in portions of the area

allows one dwelling per ha (2.5 ac) as long as the dwellings are

occupied by family, employees, or farm laborers (A. Pacheco, in litt.

1997). This is in addition to an allowance for one dwelling for the

owner. Further subdivision of parcels requires an amendment to the

general plan. Applications for general plan amendments can be submitted

whenever, and as frequently as, the land owner wishes in Tulare County

(A. Pacheco pers. comm. 1997). Three small populations of C.

springvillensis occur on lands owned by Tulare County. These

populations are subject to incidental impacts associated with frequent

large nature group walks and livestock grazing (CNDDB 1997).

The largest population of Clarkia springvillensis occurs on a 1.8

ha (4.5 ac) preserve owned by CDFG. Prior to acquisition by CDFG, this

property had an access road cut into the preserve, a water well

drilled, and a knoll leveled as a pad for home construction. The type

locality for C. springvillensis,, which covered a 27 ha (67 ac) area,

was extirpated by mobile home development (CNDDB 1997).

Both of the largest populations of Verbena californica are on

private land that currently is being developed, or could be developed

soon. When last surveyed, each of these populations was estimated to

contain several thousand

[[Page 49029]]

plants; the next largest population was estimated to contain fewer than

500 plants (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). In August 1997, the Tuolumne County

Board of Supervisors rescinded the 1994 Environmental Impact Report

(prepared pursuant to CEQA, discussed below) for a planned subdivision

at one of these populations on Andrew Creek. Because of this action, a

1989 vested map dividing the land into 23 parcels is in effect (Robin

Wood, Tuolumne County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997a). Grading

and road building are currently occurring in V. californica habitat on

the site (Rich Hunter, Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center,

pers. comm. 1997; R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997a). This population was

estimated to contain at least 35 to 40 percent of all V. californica

plants, based on CDFG 1993 population sizes. In addition, it is the

only population of V. californica known from the Andrew Creek drainage

and the most westerly population of the species. The second of the two

largest populations of V. californica is on Big Creek (CDFG 1993). The

parcel recently was sold, and the owners are planning to build a house

on a knoll about 300 feet from the creek where V. californica grows.

The parcel is currently zoned so that it could be divided into 15 ha

(37 ac) parcels. The parcel could be further divided if the general

plan was amended; amending can take place three times a year in

Tuolumne County. In addition, the busy, nearby intersection of Old Don

Pedro Road and La Grange Road may be developed, if the general plan is

amended. Other areas of rapid development in the vicinity of V.

californica in Tuolumne County include the intersection of Highways 108

and 120 and the area around Chinese Camp (R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997b).

Recreational placer gold mining has not been allowed since 1993 in

Andrew and Big creeks, but it is still allowed in Poor Man's and Six

Bit gulches (Art Champ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in litt. 1995).

Three populations of Verbena californica on BLM land in Six Bit Gulch

and one on BLM land in an unnamed drainage between Six Bit Gulch and

Big Creek are threatened by recreational placer gold mining (CDFG

1993). Impacts from casual mining continue to occur despite designation

of the entire Red Hills as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by

BLM (Ed Hastey, BLM, in litt. 1992). Verbena californica was only found

on areas of the stream in the Six Bit Gulch area where mining

activities had not changed land contours and habitat (Rogers 1983).

Another impact from recreational mining is trampling by humans, which

negatively affects V. californica and its habitat (Anne Knox, BLM,

pers. comm. 1997a).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Overutilization is not currently known to be a factor for these

four plants, but unrestricted collecting for scientific or

horticultural purposes or excessive visits by individuals interested in

seeing rare plants could result from increased publicity as a result of

this final rule.

C. Disease or Predation

Many Clarkia springvillensis sites are reported to be grazed by

domestic livestock (Kimberlie McCue, Missouri Botanical Garden, in

litt. 1997). Grazing can negatively affect C. springvillensis although

the degree of impact depends on the timing and intensity of grazing.

Grazed plants have the ability to continue producing flowers, but

heavy, repeated, and/or late season grazing can adversely affect the

plants (K. McCue, in litt. 1997). Intensive grazing has been identified

as one of the greatest threats to the species and the ``basic cause of

its rarity'' (J. Shevock in litt. 1985). Heavy livestock grazing and/or

trampling have been reported in three populations of C. springvillensis

in Tulare County (T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey, in litt. 1993;

CNDDB 1997). An additional five occurrences are grazed, but heavy

grazing and/or trampling have not been reported at these sites (CNDDB

1997). Appropriate grazing regimes may benefit C. springvillensis in

some situations by reducing the abundance of alien plants and thereby

lessening competitive pressure on C. springvillensis (K. McCue, in

litt. 1997).

Several populations of Verbena californica are grazed (CNDDB 1997).

Although the effects of grazing on V. californica are not thoroughly

understood, plants in grazed sites are noticeably smaller than those in

ungrazed sites (Mark Skinner, CNPS, pers. comm. 1993; A. Knox, pers.

comm. 1997b). Field observations suggest that V. californica can

tolerate only light grazing before it disappears from occupied habitat

(Rogers 1983). Even if grazing itself does not threaten V. californica,

trampling associated with grazing negatively impacts the plants and

their habitat (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997a, b). One of the two largest

populations of V. californica is subject to trampling (A. Knox, pers.

comm. 1997b) and heavy grazing (CNDDB 1997). When last surveyed, this

population contained several thousand plants on about 13 percent of the

total acreage occupied by V. californica, and was estimated to contain

approximately 40 to 50 percent of all V. californica plants (CDFG 1993;

CNDDB 1997). Recently, a cattle feeder was installed 3 m (10 ft) from

the creek where V. californica grows at this site (P. Stone, pers.

comm. 1997a), which may increase trampling effects. Trampling has also

been identified as a threat at two other populations of V. californica

(CDFG 1993; A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b). At one of these sites, the

trampling was due to trespass grazing (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).

The Service has not received any scientific studies suggesting that

heavy livestock grazing has adverse effects on any of the populations

of the four taxa in this final rule. The Service maintains that,

depending on a wide variety of circumstances, livestock grazing may

have little, or no detectable, adverse effects on plant communities.

The effects on plants from livestock grazing are highly variable and

dependent on many factors, including but not limited to, livestock

class, timing, intensity, and duration of livestock use, and the

species of plants themselves, (Heady 1975). Soil and ambient air

temperatures, along with effective soil moisture from spring rainfall

also influence plant germination, growth, and availability for

livestock consumption (Heady 1975; Huenneke and Mooney 1989). Livestock

grazing occurs where many of the four plant species populations are

located, and the Service is aware of numerous circumstances where,

under a specific set of circumstances, livestock grazing has no or

little adverse effect on any of the four plants. The BLM and Sierra

National Forest constructed livestock exclusion fences around one

population of Verbena californica and one population of Calyptridium

pulchellum to promote and protect the plants and their habitats. There

have been observations of neutral, little, and adverse effects of

livestock grazing on these four taxa (K. McCue, in litt. 1997; CNDDB

1997).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The State of California Fish and Game Commission has listed

Brodiaea pallida and Clarkia springvillensis as endangered species

under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Chapter 1.5

Sec. 2050 et seq. of the CDFG Code and Title 14 California Code of

Regulations 670.2). In September 1994, the California Fish and Game

Commission listed Verbena californica as a threatened species (Chapter

1.5

[[Page 49030]]

Sec. 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14

California Code of Regulations 670.2 ). Listing by the State of

California requires individuals to obtain a memorandum of understanding

with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to possess or

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

is prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA), Chapter

10 Sec. 1908 and CESA, Chapter 1.5 Sec. 2080), State law appears to

exempt the taking of such plants via habitat modification or land use

changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a State-

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

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

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

Chapter 10 Sec. 1913). California Senate Bill 879, passed in 1997 and

effective January 1, 1998, requires individuals to obtain a section

2081(b) permit from CDFG to take a listed species incidental to

otherwise lawful activities, and requires that all impacts be fully

mitigated and all measures be capable of successful implementation.

These new requirements have not been tested and several years will be

required to evaluate their effectiveness in protecting species.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full

disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects.

The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the

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

conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other

agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section

15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a

project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range

of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible

for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but are not so listed

are given the same protection as those species that are officially

listed by the State or Federal governments. Once significant effects

are identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation

for effects through changes in the project or deciding that overriding

considerations make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects

that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of

endangered species, may be approved. Protection of listed species

through CEQA is therefore dependant upon the discretion of the agency

involved. In addition, CEQA guidelines recently have been revised in

ways which, if made final, may weaken protections for threatened,

endangered, and other sensitive species.

Brodiaea pallida and Verbena californica occur in seeps, springs,

and overflow channels, and in intermittent and perennial streams,

respectively. Such features may be treated as waters of the United

States for regulatory purposes by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Clean

Water Act, alone, does not provide adequate protection for Brodiaea

pallida and Verbena californica. For example, Nationwide Permit (NWP)

No. 26 (33 CFR part 330 Appendix B (26)) was established by the Corps

to facilitate issuance of permits for discharge of fill into wetlands.

Under current regulations, NWPs may be issued for fills up to 1.2 ha

(3.0 ac); fills greater than 1.2 ha require an individual permit (61 FR

65916). For project proposals falling under NWP 26, the Corps seldom

withholds authorization unless a listed threatened or endangered

species' continued existence would be jeopardized by the proposed

action, regardless of the significance of other wetland resources.

Moreover, for fills less than 0.13 ha (0.3 ac) only an after-the-fact

report is required by the Corps. This report must be submitted within

30 days of completion of the work and include only the name, address,

and telephone number of the permittee; location and description of the

work; and, the type and acreage of the loss (61 FR 65917). Populations

of Verbena californica and some parts of the single population of

Brodiaea pallida may occur in wetlands smaller than 0.13 ha (0.3 ac).

Although General Condition 11 of the NWP states that ``no activity is

authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a threatened or endangered species . . . or which is

likely to destroy or modify the critical habitat of such species' (61

FR 65880), the after-the-fact nature of the reporting requirement is

inadequate to ensure the protection of populations that occur in areas

smaller than the 0.13 ha (0.3 ac) threshold. For Brodiaea pallida and

Verbena californica, the reporting requirement may be inadequate to

prevent significant destruction of many individual plants and

associated habitats.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

Although the public lands in the Red Hills are closed to OHV use, a

public loop road was constructed through the area in 1995, and OHV use

continues to threaten populations of Verbena californica (P. Stone,

pers. comm. 1997b; Patti Wilson, CNPS, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). The

BLM continues to issue small numbers of citations for shooting and OHV

use in the Red Hills (Steve Martin, BLM, pers. comm. 1997). Trash

dumping has also damaged one population of Verbena californica on BLM

lands in Six Bit Gulch (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).

Small population size increases the susceptibility of a population

to extirpation from random demographic, environmental and/or genetic

events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and Carroll 1994).

Brodiaea pallida exists in only a single population comprising 26 ha

(65 ac). Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for at least five

populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and three populations of Verbena

californica, and populations sizes of 20 to 200 plants are reported for

Clarkia springvillensis (CDFG 1990; CNDDB 1997). Although neither

regular nor systematic inventories have been conducted for all

populations at every location, populations of these plants have been

examined in drought and non-drought years from 1901 for Calyptridium

pulchellum, 1964 for Clarkia cvspringvillensis, and 1942 for Verbena

californica. Demographic events that may put small populations of

Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena

californica at risk involve random fluctuations in survival and

reproduction of individuals (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and

Carroll 1994). These species may also be subject to increased genetic

drift and inbreeding as a consequence of their small population sizes

(Menges 1991; Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Populations that are

continually small in size are particularly susceptible to genetic

changes due to drift. However, drift may also cause genetic changes

with populations that occasionally fluctuate to small sizes (e.g.,

undergo population bottlenecks). Increased homozygosity resulting from

genetic drift and inbreeding may lead to a loss of fitness (ability of

individuals to survive and reproduce) in small populations. In

addition, reduced genetic variation in small populations may make any

species less able to successfully adapt to future environmental changes

(Ellstrand and Elam 1993).

Environmental events that may put small populations at risk include

random or unpredictable fluctuations in the physical environment such

as fire or flooding (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993; Meffe and

Carroll 1994). Human-

[[Page 49031]]

related activities, such as trash dumping or toxic chemical spills, may

be considered random environmental events potentially leading to the

extirpation of small populations. Thus, all four species are threatened

by potential loss of fitness and/or genetic variability as well as by

demographic and environmental events associated with small population

sizes. The combination of few populations, small range, and/or

restricted habitat makes all four species highly susceptible to

extinction or extirpation from a significant portion of their ranges

due to random events, such as flood, drought, disease, or other

occurrences (Shaffer 1981, 1987, Meffe and Carroll 1994). Such events

are not usually a concern until the number of populations or geographic

distributions become severely limited, as is the case with the four

species discussed here. Once the number of populations or the plant

population sizes are reduced, the remnant populations, or portions of

populations, have a higher probability of extinction from random

events.

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by these taxa in determining to make this final

rule. Urban development has reduced the range of Brodiaea pallida and

continues to threaten the species. Inadequate regulatory mechanisms,

the existence of only one population, and the small range of the

species also threaten the existence of the species. Urbanization, small

size of populations and small number of populations threaten

Calyptridium puchellum throughout all or a significant portion of its

range. Urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, inadequate

regulatory mechanisms, the small range of the species, and heavy

livestock grazing threaten Clarkia springvillensis throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. Urbanization, OHV use, recreational

placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and trampling, trash

dumping, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and random extirpation from

small size and number of populations threaten Verbena californica

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines a

threatened species as a species which is likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. An endangered species is any species which is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range. The Service considered other alternatives to this action, but

based on the foregoing evaluation, the Service finds that all four

species meet the definition of a threatened species throughout all or a

significant portion of their range.

Critical Habitat

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

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

the time it is listed in accordance with section 4 of the Act, on which

are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the

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

management consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside

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

upon determination that such areas are essential for the conservation

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

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

under the Act is no longer necessary.

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

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

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is listed. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state

that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of

the following situations exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking

or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such

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

Service regulations also state that critical habitat is not

determinable when one or both of the following situations exist--(i)

information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts is

lacking, or (ii) the biological needs of the species are not

sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area of (50 CFR

424.12(a)(2)). If the Service finds that it is not determinable, the

Service may extend up to one year the designation of critical habitat.

The designation of critical habitat may benefit listed plant

species when actions affecting the species are likely to involve a

Federal agency. Federal involvement is most likely on two situations--

(1) where the species occurs on Federal lands and (2) when a Federal

agency is involved in authorizing or funding actions on non-Federal

lands (for example, through section 404 of the Clean Water Act or

actions involving Federal funding). The designation of critical habitat

may also provide benefit to a species by informing the general public

about the species, and by identifying areas critical to species for

purposes of recovery planning. Critical habitat designation may also

provide information to Federal agencies in the instances when they may

have to consult with the Service pursuant to section 7.

Brodiaea pallida

Brodiaea pallida occurs in a single location on private land (CNDDB

1997). The local County government, present landowner and adjacent

landowners are aware of B. pallida and its location. The California

Commission of Fish and Game held a public hearing regarding the

proposal to list B. pallida as an endangered species and later

designated B. pallida an endangered species pursuant to CESA in 1978.

In 1985, the CDFG offered an acquisition proposal to the landowners to

obtain ownership of the occupied habitat of B. pallida but the

landowners were not willing to sell to CDFG. Additionally, owing to the

Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during, and

after the public hearing to list B. pallida, additional public

recognition and awareness would not result from designation of critical

habitat. The small amount of potential habitat has been surveyed, but

no other B. pallida sites have ever been identified (B. Rogers, in

litt. 1997). No historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997). The Service

does not envision any benefits from designating critical habitat for B.

pallida which is only on private lands. Although a Federal nexus for B.

pallida may exist through the Clean Water Act because the species

occurs in overflow channels, seeps and springs, the designation of

critical habitat for this species would provide little or no benefit to

the protection of this species beyond that provided by listing and any

consultation that may occur in accordance with section 7 of the ESA.

Because the area of occupied habitat is very small (i.e., an area 3 to

6 m (10 to 20 ft) wide and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) long), any adverse

modification of the occupied habitat would likely jeopardize the

continued existence of B. pallida. Critical habitat will not assist the

Service or the general public in the recovery planning efforts because

most interested parties are well informed about the range and

distribution of B. pallida. Furthermore, the species experts that will

be invited to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for B.

pallida will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat.

Because no benefits are to be found, the

[[Page 49032]]

Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical habitat for

B. pallida.

Calyptridium pulchellum

Calyptridium pulchellum is found in seven occurrences; six of these

are on private lands and one is on the Sierra National Forest. No other

sites containing C. pulchellum have been identified, and no historic

locations are known (CNDDB 1997). Given that targeted searches for

potential habitat have been conducted, little likelihood exists of

finding unknown populations within the range of the species. Owing to

the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during,

and after the public hearing to list C. pulchellum, additional public

recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of

critical habitat.

Moreover, there would be no benefit from the designation of

critical habitat for the six locations on private land because C.

pulchellum does not occur in wetlands regulated under the Clean Water

Act and no other Federal actions or authorizations are likely to occur

in its habitat. Even if a Federal nexus were identified, because of the

small number and size of the C. pulchellum occurrences, any activity

that would destroy or modify the habitat of the species would also

likely jeopardize its continued existence. Four of the seven

populations of C. pulchellum are from 1 to 5 sq. m (11 to 53 sq ft) in

area and two are 0.05 ha (0.125 ac) in area and any disturbances

associated with the occupied habitat of any of the six populations are

likely to preclude the recovery of the species. The Service envisions

no benefits to the species will accrue through the section 7

consultation process by virtue of designating critical habitat. The

single population occupying less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) on U.S. Forest

Service land has been fenced to protect it from cattle trampling and

grazing (CNDDB 1997). Critical habitat will not assist the Service or

the general public in the recovery planning efforts because most all

interested parties are well informed about the range and distribution

of C. pulchellum. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited

to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C. pulchellum

will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat.

Therefore, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate for C.

pulchellum due to lack of benefit.

Clarkia springvillensis

Clarkia springvillensis is found in 15 occurrences. Eight of these

occurrences are on U.S. Forest Service lands and one is on BLM lands.

The remainder are on non-Federal lands, including private, County, and

State lands. Owing to the Services' extensive efforts of public

outreach prior to, during, and after the public hearing to list C.

springvillensis, additional public recognition and awareness would not

result from the designation of critical habitat. The only other known

C. springvillensis population was extirpated by mobile home development

in 1983; the species has not been relocated at the site because the

habitat for the species is no longer present (CNDDB 1997). On Federal

lands, modification of occupied habitat is unlikely to occur without

consultation under section 7 of the Act because the presence of C.

springvillensis, and its specific locations, are well known to the

managers of the Sierra National Forest (Dale Pengilly, District Ranger,

Sierra National Forest, in litt. 1996) and to the managers of the BLM

lands where the species occurs (Susan Carter, BLM, in litt. 1995). The

Sierra National Forest has written a species management guide for

populations of C. springvillensis that occur on Federal lands.

Likewise, the Bakersfield BLM office is aware of the single population

of C. springvillensis which occurs on Federal land administered by that

agency. On March 31, 1997, the Service completed formal consultation

and formal conference and issued a 79-page biological opinion on the

Caliente Resource Area Management Plan (CRMP). The CRMP covered many

current and proposed land use actions, including those in Tulare

County, which may affect C. springvillensis.

C. springvillensis does not occur in wetlands regulated under the

Clean Water Act and no other Federal actions are likely to occur in its

habitat on those sites located on non-Federal lands. Designation of

critical habitat on Federal lands would provide no benefit to the

species beyond listing because any action which would destroy or

adversely modify the habitat of the remaining populations of this

species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This is

especially the case with such an edaphically (pertaining to soil) and

narrowly restricted species as C. springvillensis because four

populations have less than 300 plants and four others have less than

1,000 plants. Common actions such as logging, road building, and home

construction would easily destroy populations of C. springvillensis and

any adverse modification of C. springvillensis habitat would reduce

appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of C.

springvillensis. Critical habitat will not assist the Service or the

general public in the recovery planning efforts because interested

parties are well informed about the range and distribution of C.

springvillensis. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited

to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C.

springvillensis will not be aided by the Service designating critical

habitat. Therefore, because there is no benefit in designating critical

habitat, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical

habitat for C. springvillensis.

Verbena californica

Verbena californica occurs in nine locations. Four of the locations

are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM lands. Owing to

the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during,

and after the public hearing to list V. californica, additional public

recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of

critical habitat. Additionally, as a part of the outreach prior to the

State of California Fish and Game Commission (SCFGC) listing V.

californica as threatened, the CDFG notified private landowners who had

populations of V. californica in 1992. Furthermore, the SCFGC held a

public hearing to take testimony regarding the proposed designation. As

a consequence of the State hearing, the CDFG was directed to conduct

additional public outreach with landowners within Tuolumne County. The

Tuolumne County Planning Department has detailed maps showing the

southwest trending stream channels and the distribution of V.

californica. Despite the public education and awareness program for V.

californica ongoing since 1992, destruction of parts of one population

occurred in 1997.

Although six of nine known locations are entirely or partially on

BLM lands, BLM lands contain only 15 percent of V. californica plants.

On Federal lands, no modification of occupied habitat is likely to

occur without consultation under section 7 of the Act because the

presence of V. californica, and its specific locations are well known

to the managers of these BLM lands (A. Knox, pers. comm., 1997a). BLM

installed, but has not maintained, fencing to exclude cattle from

riparian areas in the Andrews Creek drainage that support V.

californica (Franklin 1996; Al Franklin, BLM, pers. comm., 1997).

Eighty-five percent of V. californica plants are on private lands.

Despite repeated searches for additional locations of V. californica,

no other sites containing V. californica

[[Page 49033]]

have been identified, and no historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997).

On private lands, a Federal nexus for Verbena californica may occur

through the Clean Water Act because the species is found in a small

series of southwest trending intermittent and perennial serpentintic

stream channels within three small watersheds. Although a Federal nexus

for V. californica may exist through the Clean Water Act, the

designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide little

or no benefit to the protection of this species beyond that provided by

listing and any consultation that may occur in accordance with section

7 of the Act.

Designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide

little benefit to the species beyond listing because any action which

would destroy or adversely modify the habitat of the remaining

populations of this species would also likely jeopardize its continued

existence. The rationale for this overlap is found in the basis of the

edaphic restriction to serpentine substrates, the small size of some

populations, and the small number of plants in many of the populations.

Verbena californica has four populations that contain fewer than 250

individual plants covering an estimated 1.4 ha (4 ac). Any common

actions such as construction of dikes, detention dams, stream

crossings, or bridges could very easily and completely destroy any of

these smaller populations of V. californica. Likewise, any adverse

modification of V. californica habitat would seriously and easily

reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of V. californica. The

Service finds that the designation of critical habitat for V.

californica is not prudent due to lack of benefit.

For the reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the

designation of critical habitat for the four plants in this final rule

is not prudent due to lack of benefit. Protection of the habitat of

these species will be addressed through the section 4 recovery process

and the section 7 consultation process. The Service believes that

Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur can be

identified without the designation of critical habitat because the

resource staffs of the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and national forests

already have working knowledge of the locations of occupied habitats of

the species and have undertaken targeted inventories of potential

habitat since the publication of the proposed rule.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as threatened

under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities.

Recognition through listing encourages and results in conservation

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

individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the State and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving

listed plants are discussed, in part, below.

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

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their

authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs

for listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure

that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

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

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Listing these four plants would provide for development of a

recovery plan (or plans) for them. Such plans would bring together both

State and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The plans

would establish a framework for agencies, local government, and private

interests to coordinate activities and cooperate with each other in

conservation efforts. The plans would set recovery priorities and

estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also

would describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve

conservation and survival of these four plants. Additionally, pursuant

to section 6 of the Act, the Service would be able to grant funds to

affected States for management actions promoting the protection and

recovery of these species.

Federal activities potentially affecting one or more of the four

plants include mining, grazing authorizations, and issuance of special

use permits and rights-of-ways. Populations of three of the four plants

occur on Federal lands. Approximately half the occurrences of Clarkia

springvillensis and one population of Calyptridium pulchellum occur on

lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. One population of Clarkia

springvillensis occurs on lands managed by the BLM. Approximately two-

thirds of the occurrences (representing 15 percent of the plants) of

Verbena californica occur on lands managed by the BLM. These agencies

would be required to consult with the Service if any activities

authorized, funded, or carried out by these two agencies may affect

these species. For example, consultations with the BLM and U.S. Forest

Service may be required on road maintenance, livestock grazing

authorizations, and right-of-way authorizations for projects that

include adjacent or intermixed private land.

Other Federal agencies that may become involved as a result of this

rule include the Federal Highways Administration and the Corps. Because

at least two of these plants exist in or near seeps, springs, stream

beds, perennial streams or drainages, the Corps may become involved

through jurisdiction of section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In

addition, when the Service issues permits for habitat conservation

plans (HCPs) prepared by non-Federal parties, the Service must prepare

an intra-Service section 7 biological opinion on the issuance of the

10(a) permit.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened

plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by

50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part,

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

United States to import or export any of the plants, transport them in

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

sell or offer them for sale in interstate or foreign commerce; or

remove and reduce any of the plants to possession, or maliciously

damage or destroy threatened plants from areas under Federal

jurisdiction. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plant taxa

are exempt from these prohibitions provided that a statement ``Of

Cultivated Origin'' appears on the shipping containers. Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the

maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those

activities that would or would not constitute a violation of

[[Page 49034]]

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within a species' range. Two of the four species in this

rule are known to occur on U.S. Forest Service lands, and two are known

to occur on BLM lands. The Service believes that, based upon the best

available information, the following actions will not result in a

violation of section 9, provided these activities are carried out in

accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements:

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal

agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, wetland

and riparian habitat modification, flood and erosion control,

residential development, recreational trail development, road

construction, hazardous material containment and cleanup activities,

prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, pipelines or utility

line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in

accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the

Service according to section 7 of the Act;

(2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g.,

bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, hiking);

(3) Activities on private lands that do not require Federal

authorization and do not involve Federal funding, such as grazing

management, agricultural conversions, flood and erosion control,

residential development, road construction, and pesticide/herbicide

application;

(4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of

vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.

The Service believes that the following might potentially result in

a violation of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited

to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal lands;

(2) Application of herbicides violating label restrictions;

(3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without

previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct

activities are available for purposes of scientific research and

enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Questions

regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Intentional collection, damage, or destruction on non-Federal lands

may be a violation of State law or regulations or in violation of State

criminal trespass law and therefore a violation of section 9. The Act

and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 provide for the issuance of permits

to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or

threatened plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. For threatened plants, permits are also

available for botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational

purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.

The Service anticipates that few permits would ever be sought or issued

for the four species because they are typically not sought for

cultivation and are uncommon in the wild. Requests for copies of the

regulations on listed plants and inquiries regarding them may be

addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,

Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-

4181; telephone 503/231-2063 or FAX 503/231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice

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

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements

for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An

information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for

endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned

clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information

collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits

and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available upon request

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors. The authors of this final rule are Maria Boroja, Diane

Elam, Ken Fuller, and Dwight Harvey, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office (see ADDRESSES section); telephone (916) 979-2125.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

------------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Family Status When listed Special

Scientific name Common name rules

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

* * * * * * *

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

Brodiaea pallida................... Chinese Camp brodiaea. U.S.A. (CA)........... Liliaceae--Lily....... T 643 NA

[[Page 49035]]

* * * * * * *

Clarkia springvillensis............ Springville clarkia... U.S.A. (CA)........... Onagraceae--Evening T 643 NA

primrose.

* * * * * * *

Calyptridium pulchellum............ Mariposa pussypaws.... U.S.A. (CA)........... Portulacaceae-Purslane T 643 NA

* * * * * * *

Verbena californica................ Red Hills vervain..... U.S.A. (CA)........... Verbenaceae-Vervain... T 643 NA

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: September 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-24500 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P