Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE23

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Endangered Status for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

for two plants--Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and Delphinium

luteum (yellow larkspur). These species grow in a variety of habitats

including coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or chaparral in Sonoma and

Marin counties in northern California. Habitat loss and degradation,

sheep grazing, road maintenance activities, and overcollection imperil

the continued existence of these plants. Random events increase the

risk of extinction to the extremely small plant populations. This

proposal, if made final, would implement the Federal protection and

recovery provisions afforded by the Act for these plants.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by August

18, 1997. Public hearing requests must be received by August 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento,

California 95821-6340. Comments and materials received, as well as the

supporting documentation used in preparing the rule, will be available

for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Tarp, Sacramento Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 916/979-

2128).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Comments and materials received, as well as the

supporting documentation used in preparing the rule, will be available

for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Tarp, Sacramento Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 916/979-

2128).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and D. luteum (yellow

larkspur) were found historically in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or

chaparral habitats. Urban development, agricultural land conversion, or

livestock grazing have destroyed much of the habitat and extirpated

numerous populations of these two plants in coastal Marin and Sonoma

Counties in northern California. The historical range of Delphinium

bakeri and D. luteum did not extend beyond coastal Marin and Sonoma

counties.

Ewan (1942) described Delphinium bakeri based on type material

collected by Milo Baker in 1939 from ``Coleman Valley, Sonoma Co.,

California.'' In the most recent treatment, Warnock (1993) retained the

taxon as a full species. Historically, D. bakeri was known from Coleman

Valley in Sonoma County and from a site near Tomales in Marin County.

Delphinium bakeri occurs on decomposed shale within the coastal scrub

plant community from 400 to 500 feet (ft) (120 to 150 meters (m) in

elevation (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1994).

Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb in the buttercup family

(Ranunculaceae) that grows from a thickened, tuber-like, fleshy cluster

of roots. The stems are hollow, erect, and grow to 65 centimeters(cm)

(26 inches (in.)) tall. The shallowly 5-parted leaves occur primarily

along the upper third of the stem and are green at the time the plant

flowers. The flowers are irregularly shaped. The five sepals are

conspicuous, bright dark blue or purplish, with the rear sepal

elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs

The stems are hollow, erect, and grow to 65 centimeters(cm)

(26 inches (in.)) tall. The shallowly 5-parted leaves occur primarily

along the upper third of the stem and are green at the time the plant

flowers. The flowers are irregularly shaped. The five sepals are

conspicuous, bright dark blue or purplish, with the rear sepal

elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The

lower pair is oblong and blue-purple; the upper pair is oblique and

white. Seeds are produced in several dry, many-seeded fruits which

split open at maturity on only one side (i.e., several follicles).

Delphinium bakeri flowers from April through May (Warnock 1993).

Habitat conversion to agricultural land, grazing, and/or roadside

maintenance activities have extirpated occurrences in Marin and Sonoma

counties (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994). The only

known remaining population, with a total of about 35 individuals, is

found on a steep road bank in Marin County that is subject to road

work, overcollection, and sheep grazing. Because of its extreme range

restriction and small population size, the plant also is vulnerable to

extinction from random events, such as fire or insect outbreaks (CNDDB

1994). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (1994) reported

the trend of the species is one of decline.

Heller (1903) described Delphinium luteum based on type material

collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay, along the

road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County. Although

Jepson (1970) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule, it is

currently recognized as

rnia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (1994) reported

the trend of the species is one of decline.

Heller (1903) described Delphinium luteum based on type material

collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay, along the

road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County. Although

Jepson (1970) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule, it is

currently recognized as

a full species (Warnock 1993). Delphinium luteum occurs on rocky areas

within coastal scrub plant community, including areas with active rock

slides, from sea level to 300 feet (100 m) in elevation (Guerrant

1976).

Delphinium luteum is a perennial herb in the buttercup family

(Ranunculaceae) that grows from fibrous roots to 55 cm (22 in.) tall.

The leaves are mostly basal, fleshy, and green at the time of

flowering. The flowers are cornucopia-shaped. The five conspicuous

sepals are bright yellow, with the posterior sepal elongated into a

spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The upper petals are

narrow and unlobed; the lower petals are oblong to ovate. The fruit is

a follicle. Delphinium luteum flowers from March to May.

Never widely distributed, historical populations of Delphinium

luteum have been partially or entirely extirpated by rock quarrying

activities, over-collecting, residential development, and sheep

grazing, resulting in the species now being even more narrowly

distributed (Guerrant 1976; CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, Milo Baker

Chapter, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) pers. comm. 1995). The

two remaining populations near Bodega, both on private land, total

fewer than 50 plants. Development, overcollection, and sheep grazing in

addition to their small isolated nature makes them susceptible to

random events (CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). CDFG

Guerrant 1976; CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, Milo Baker

Chapter, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) pers. comm. 1995). The

two remaining populations near Bodega, both on private land, total

fewer than 50 plants. Development, overcollection, and sheep grazing in

addition to their small isolated nature makes them susceptible to

random events (CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). CDFG

(1994) reported the species is declining.

Previous Federal Action

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

section 12 of the original Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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 Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as

endangered species. The Service published a notice on July 1, 1975 (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. The above two taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice.

On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposal (41 FR 24523) to

determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be endangered

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

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

Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House Document

No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication.

Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included in the June 16, 1976,

Federal Register document.

General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in an April 26, 1978, notice (43 FR 17909)

on the basis of comments and data received by the

Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House Document

No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication.

Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included in the June 16, 1976,

Federal Register document.

General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in an April 26, 1978, notice (43 FR 17909). The Endangered

Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all proposals over 2 years

old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those proposals

already more than 2 years old. In the December 10, 1979, notice (44 FR

70796), the Service published a notice of withdrawal of the June 6,

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 Delphinium bakeri

and D. luteum as category 1 candidates for Federal listing. Category 1

taxa were those species 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 a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640). This

supplement changed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. from category 1 to

category 2 candidates. Category 2 taxa were those species for which

data in the Service's possession indicate listing is possibly

appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability

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

rules.

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

39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. were again included as

category 2 candidates. Another revision of the plant notice was

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

Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 1 candidates

hreats were not currently known or on file to support proposed

rules.

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

39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. were again included as

category 2 candidates. Another revision of the plant notice was

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

Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 1 candidates.

The Service made no changes to the status of the two species in the

plant notice published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). 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. Both species were listed as candidates in the

February 28, 1996, Notice of Review.

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 Delphinium bakeri

and D. luteum., because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted

as a petition. On October 13, 1982, 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 annually in October of 1983 through 1994.

Publication of this proposal constitutes the final finding for the

petitioned action. Processing of this rule is a Tier 3 activity under

the current listing priority guidance (61 FR 64480).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

ch a finding requires the petition

to be recycled, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(I) of the Act. The

finding was reviewed annually in October of 1983 through 1994.

Publication of this proposal constitutes the final finding for the

petitioned action. Processing of this rule is a Tier 3 activity under

the current listing priority guidance (61 FR 64480).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

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

forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species

may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of

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

application to Delphinium bakeri Ewan (Baker's larkspur) and

Delphinium luteum Heller (yellow larkspur) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Historically, the habitat of

Delphinium bakeri was eliminated by agricultural conversion to

grainfields (Ewan 1942). Threats to the lone remaining site of D.

bakeri are discussed under Factors B through E. Of the two remaining

populations of Delphinium luteum, the one located at an old rock quarry

site near Bodega has been partially destroyed and fragmented by

historical quarry activities. The number of plants remaining at this

site continues to decline. Population numbers were between 100 to 200

plants in 1978 (Ed Guerrant, Berry Botanic Garden, pers. comm. 1995),

but recent counts indicate that only 30 to 40 individuals remain (B.

Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). The other extant site has fewer than 10

remaining individuals. A historical site near the town of Graton had

been converted to residential uses by 1987 (CNDDB 1994). Urban

development, and its associated recreational activities, continue to

threaten both remaining populations (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995).

counts indicate that only 30 to 40 individuals remain (B.

Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). The other extant site has fewer than 10

remaining individuals. A historical site near the town of Graton had

been converted to residential uses by 1987 (CNDDB 1994). Urban

development, and its associated recreational activities, continue to

threaten both remaining populations (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995).

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Overutilization is a threat for both species. In

1992, all the follicles were collected from the plants at the only

known site of Delphinium bakeri (CDFG 1993). Due to its distinctive

yellow flowers, which is uncommon for larkspurs, D. luteum is of

horticultural interest. Collecting is thought to have extirpated at

least one occurrence of Delphinium luteum located southwest of Tomales

(CNDDB 1994). Additionally, some of the historical decline to D. luteum

can be attributed to collecting. Delphinium luteum was offered in

horticultural trade journals (as a plant to order) during the 1940's

and 1950's (Michael Warnock, Sam Houston University, pers. comm. 1994).

Plants can still be procured from a local nursery (their seed source is

not from the wild). Both populations of D. luteum are close to

residential areas and are subject to collecting. 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 proposal.

C. Disease or predation. The single population of Delphinium bakeri

which, unlike most other species in the genus does not appear to be

poisonous to livestock (Ewan 1942), may be threatened by sheep grazing

(CNDDB 1994). The few remaining individuals (approximately 35) are

extremely vulnerable to impacts that otherwise might not be

significant. Although D

s 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'' (Native Plant

Protection Act, Chapter 10 section 1913).

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (chapter 2 section

21050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code) 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 are not given the same

protection as those species that are officially listed with the State

or Federal governments. Once significant effects are identified, the

lead agency has the option to require mitigation for effects through

changes in the project or to decide that overriding considerations make

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

that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of

endangered species. Protection of listed species through CEQA is

therefore dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved. In

addition, revisions to CEQA guidelines have been proposed which, if

implemented, may weaken protections for threatened, endangered, and

other sensitive species.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The remaining population of Delphinium luteum at the rock

quarry may be threatened by users of a trail associated with the

extension of an existing golf course into the current scenic easement

that exists on this site (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995)

eaken protections for threatened, endangered, and

other sensitive species.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The remaining population of Delphinium luteum at the rock

quarry may be threatened by users of a trail associated with the

extension of an existing golf course into the current scenic easement

that exists on this site (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). At this site,

the Bodega Harbor landowners association is proposing to build an

equipment storage shed and a public trail that would be close to the

remaining plants. Although the proposed storage equipment shed would be

located on degraded habitat and would have no direct impact on the

population, the public trail would run near the population. The

proximity of the trail to the plants would increase the threat from

collection (see Factor B).

The remaining population of Delphinium bakeri occurs on a steep

road bank that is along side of a county road in Marin County. Some

potential exists for spraying and road maintenance activities that

could be detrimental to this species due to the extremely low number of

individuals left. The degree to which these activities place the

population at risk is uncertain.

Because few populations and/or individuals remain, both plant

species proposed herein likely are threatened by genetic drift.

Delphinium bakeri has one population consisting of 35 plants.

Delphinium luteum has two populations, totaling fewer than 50 plants.

Small populations often are subject to increased genetic drift and

inbreeding as consequences of their small populations (Ellstrand and

Elam 1993). A loss of genetic variability, and consequent reduction in

genetic fitness affords less chance of any species to successfully

adapt to environmental change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993)

hinium luteum has two populations, totaling fewer than 50 plants.

Small populations often are subject to increased genetic drift and

inbreeding as consequences of their small populations (Ellstrand and

Elam 1993). A loss of genetic variability, and consequent reduction in

genetic fitness affords less chance of any species to successfully

adapt to environmental change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993).

The combination of few, small populations, narrow range and

restricted habitat, make these two plant species susceptible to

destruction of all or a significant part of any population from random

events, such as fire, drought, disease, or other occurrences (Shaffer

1981, Primack 1993). Random events causing population fluctuations or

even population extirpations are not usually a concern until the number

of individuals or geographic distribution becomes very limited, which

is the case for both these species (Primack 1993). Once a plant

population becomes so reduced due to habitat destruction and

fragmentation, the remnant population has 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 two species in determining to propose

this rule. Habitat loss and degradation, sheep grazing, inadequate

regulatory mechanisms, naturally occurring events, small plant

populations, road maintenance activities, and overcollection imperil

the continued existence of these plants. Delphinium bakeri has one

population with a total of 35 plants. Delphinium luteum has two small

populations with a total of fewer than 50 plants. Both plant species

are in danger of extinction throughout all of their range, and the

preferred action is therefore to list Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium

luteum as endangered. Other alternatives to this action were considered

but not preferred because not listing them or listing them as

threatened would not provide adequate

m has two small

populations with a total of fewer than 50 plants. Both plant species

are in danger of extinction throughout all of their range, and the

preferred action is therefore to list Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium

luteum as endangered. Other alternatives to this action were considered

but not preferred because not listing them or listing them as

threatened would not provide adequate

protection and would not be consistent with the Act.

Critical Habitat

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

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

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

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

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

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 determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service

finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for

Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium luteum at this time. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical

habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations

exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,

and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

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

habitat would not be beneficial to the species

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.

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

Species'' overutilization has been documented and threatens both plant

species. The publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical

habitat in the Federal Register would make these plants more vulnerable

to incidents of collection and, therefore, could contribute to the

decline of these species and increase enforcement problems. The listing

of these species as endangered also publicizes the rarity of these

plants and, thus, can make these plants attractive to researchers or

collectors of rare plants.

Furthermore, critical habitat designation for Delphinium bakeri and

Delphinium luteum is not prudent due to lack of benefit. Because the

two plant species are limited to a few locations entirely on private

land, any action that would adversely modify critical habitat also

would jeopardize the species. The designation of critical habitat

therefore would not provide additional benefit for these species beyond

the protection afforded by listing.

Protection of the habitat of these species will be addressed

through the recovery process and through section 7. The Service

believes that Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur

can be identified without the designation of critical habitat. For the

reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the designation of

critical habitat for these plants is not prudent at this time.

Available Conservation Measures

species will be addressed

through the recovery process and through section 7. The Service

believes that Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur

can be identified without the designation of critical habitat. For the

reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the designation of

critical habitat for these plants is not prudent at this time.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and cooperation with the 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 requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

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

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

any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

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

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

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed

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

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

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

adversely modify its critical habitat

ize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed

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

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

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

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

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Listing these two plants would provide for development of a

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

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

plan(s) would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate

activities and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The

plan(s) 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 the two 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.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered

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

50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part,

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

United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign

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

in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession

from areas under Federal jurisdiction

ted by

50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part,

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

United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign

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

in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession

from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed

as endangered, the act prohibits malicious damage or destruction on

areas under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up,

or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any

State law or regulation, including state criminal trespass law. 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 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. None of the occurrences of the two species occur on

public (Federal) lands. Collection, damage or destruction of these

species on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a

Federal endangered species permit may be issued to allow collection for

scientific or recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal lands

would constitute a violation of section 9 if conducted in knowing

violation of California State law or regulations or in violation of

State criminal trespass law.

Activities that are unlikely to violate section 9 include livestock

grazing, clearing a defensible space for fire protection around one's

personal residence, and landscaping (including irrigation), around

one's personal

eral lands

would constitute a violation of section 9 if conducted in knowing

violation of California State law or regulations or in violation of

State criminal trespass law.

Activities that are unlikely to violate section 9 include livestock

grazing, clearing a defensible space for fire protection around one's

personal residence, and landscaping (including irrigation), around

one's personal

residence. Questions regarding whether specific activities will

constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 for endangered plants, and also

provide for the issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited

activities involving endangered or threatened plants under certain

circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and

to enhance the propagation or survival or the species. For threatened

plants, permits also are available for botanical or horticultural

exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with

the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated few trade permits would ever

be sought or issued for the three species because the species are not

common in cultivation or in the wild. Requests for copies of the

regulations regarding listed species and inquiries regarding

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

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

Oregon 97232-4181 (phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/231-6243).

Public Comments Solicited

e species because the species are not

common in cultivation or in the wild. Requests for copies of the

regulations regarding listed species and inquiries regarding

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

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

Oregon 97232-4181 (phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/231-6243).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service

will follow its current peer review policy (59 FR 34270) in the

processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum;

(2) The location of any additional populations of these species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of these species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on these species.

Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information received by the Service,

and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of

publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and

addressed to the Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803, Sacramento, CA 95825-

1846.

National Environmental Policy Act

posal.

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of

publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and

addressed to the Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803, Sacramento, CA 95825-

1846.

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).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork

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

requirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Kirsten Tarp,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend 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. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in

alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

ow:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

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

alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

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

Scientific name Common name habitat rules

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

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

Delphinium bakeri................ Baker's larkspur.... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E ........... NA NA

Delphinium luteum................ yellow larkspur..... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E ........... NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: April 28, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

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

[FR Doc. 97-15927 Filed 6-18-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U