[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5542-5551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2875]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AB88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for ``Pseudobahia bahiifolia'' (Hartweg's golden
sunburst) and Threatened Status for ``Pseudobahia peirsonii'' (San
Joaquin adobe sunburst), Two Grassland Plants From the Central Valley
of California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered
status for Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg's golden sunburst) and
threatened status for Pseudobahia peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe
sunburst) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). The two plants occur primarily in nonnative grasslands in the
eastern and southeastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley, but also
at a few sites at the ecotone between grasslands dominated by nonnative
species and blue oak woodland communities. Both plants are threatened
primarily by conversion of habitat to residential development. To a
lesser extent, the species are variously threatened by agriculture (ag-
land development), competition from nonnative plants, incompatible
grazing practices, transmission line maintenance, recreational
activities, mining, road construction and maintenance, a flood control
project, and other human impacts. Potential threats include herbicide
application to control herbaceous and weedy taxa. This rule implements
the Federal protection and recovery provisions afforded by the Act for
these species.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310 El Camino
Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Warne (see ADDRESSES
section) telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 916/979-2128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg's golden sunburst) and Pseudobahia
peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe sunburst) are endemic to the nonnative
grassland and grassland-blue oak woodland community ecotone of the
southern Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley of California. These
two valleys comprise the Central Valley. The prehistoric composition of
the native grasslands and adjoining plant communities likely will
remain a mystery (Brown 1982), although numerous authors have
speculated as to the composition of the ``pristine'' flora of the
Central Valley (Clements 1934, Munz and Keck 1950, Biswell 1956,
Twisselmann 1956, White 1967, McNaughton 1968, Bakker 1971, Ornduff
1974, Heady 1977, Bartolome and Gremmill 1981, and Wester 1981).
Nonnative annual grasses and forbs invaded the low elevation plant
communities of California during the days of the Franciscan
missionaries in the 1700's. These nonnative grasses now account for up
to 80 percent or more of the floral composition of the grasslands of
California (Heady 1956). The nonnative grasses have outcompeted the
native flora throughout much of California because these exotics
germinate in late fall prior to the germination of the native forbs,
including the two sunflower species discussed herein, Pseudobahia
bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii. Each species, however, occurs in
a distinctive microhabitat within the larger matrix of nonnative annual
grassland. Pseudobahia bahiifolia prefers the top of ``Mima'' mound
topography where the grass cover is
[[Page 5543]]
minimal (Stebbins 1991). Vernal pools, an increasingly rare California
landform, are often interspersed with the Mima mounds (Stebbins 1991).
Pseudobahia peirsonii prefers heavy adobe clay soils where the water
retention properties are high.
Karl Hartweg, a German botanist, first collected Pseudobahia
bahiifolia on Cordua's farm near the junction of the Yuba and Feather
Rivers in Yuba County, California in April of 1847. George Bentham
described the species as Monolopia bahiaefolia in 1849. Edward L.
Greene placed the species in the genus Eriophyllum in 1897. In 1915,
Per Rydberg established the genus Pseudobahia on the basis of leaf and
floral morphology and formed the new combination Pseudobahia
bahiaefolia. Dale Johnson (1978) recognized a spelling error in the
specific epithet bahiaefolia and used Pseudobahia bahiifolia in his
doctoral dissertation.
Pseudobahia bahiifolia, a member of the sunflower or aster family
(Asteraceae), is one of three species of Pseudobahia in the subtribe
Eriophyllinae of the tribe Helenieae (Johnson 1978). The species is a
few-branched annual about 6 to 15 centimeters (cm) (2 to 6 inches
(in.)) tall, covered throughout with white, wooly hairs. Its leaves are
narrow, alternate, three-lobed or entire with three blunt teeth at the
apex, and about 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in.) long. The bright yellow
flower heads, produced in March or April, are solitary at the ends of
the branches. The ray flowers are equal in number to the sub-floral
bracts (phyllaries) and the pappus is absent. Pseudobahia bahiifolia is
distinguished from other members of the genus by having the largest
leaves, entire or three-lobed versus once or twice pinnatifid, as in
Pseudobahia heermanii and Pseudobahia peirsonii. The range of
Pseudobahia bahiifolia is strongly correlated with the distribution of
the Amador and Rocklin soil series (Stebbins 1991). Both series
generally consist of shallow, well-drained, medium-textured soils that
exhibit strong Mima mound microrelief (Stebbins 1991). Such topography
is characterized by a series of mounds that may range from 30 cm to 2
meters (m) (1.0 to 6.6 feet (ft)) in height and 3 to 30 m (10 to 98 ft)
in basal diameter interspersed with shallow basins that may pond water
during the rainy season (Bates and Jackson 1987). Pseudobahia
bahiifolia nearly always occurs on the north or northeast facing slopes
of the mounds, with the highest plant densities on upper slopes with
minimal grass cover (Stebbins 1991). A variant of one of the two soil
series is concentrated near Friant in Madera County and contains large
quantities of pumice, which is mined for use as an industrial binder
and is used in making concrete blocks (Chesterman and Schmidt 1956).
According to a status survey by John Stebbins (1991), Pseudobahia
bahiifolia may have existed throughout the Central Valley of California
from Yuba County in the north to Fresno County in the south, a range of
approximately 322 kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi)). The plant presently
occurs only in the eastern San Joaquin Valley in Stanislaus, Madera,
and Fresno Counties, a range of approximately 153 km (95 mi). One
population occurs on land owned and managed jointly by the Bureau of
Reclamation and a private owner; the remaining populations all occur on
privately owned property (California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB) 1996).
Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants occur in two
general locations. One site, in Madera County, approximately 0.8 km
(0.5 mile) long and containing about 16,000 plants, is the remnant of
one large population that now has become fragmented. The second large
population, in Stanislaus County, covers about 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres
(ac)) and contains approximately 15,000 plants. Although the number of
individuals per population of annual species is highly variable from
year to year, 11 of 16 extant populations are very small, and numbered
fewer than 200 plants during the 1990 field season (Stebbins 1991).
Conversion of native habitat to residential development is the
primary threat to the existence of Pseudobahia bahiifolia. To a lesser
degree, agriculture (ag-land development), competition from aggressive
exotic plants, incompatible grazing practices, mining, and other human
impacts actions also threaten the species (CNDDB 1996).
In March 1925, Philip Munz first collected specimens of Pseudobahia
peirsonii in a grassy flat near Ducor in Tulare County, California.
Until Munz described Pseudobahia peirsonii as a species in 1949,
specimens had been included in Monopolia heermani, Eriophyllum
heermani, or Pseudobahia heermani, depending on the prevailing
treatment of the time (Stebbins 1991). Sherwin Carlquist (1956) and
Johnson (1978) supported Munz's taxonomic position with additional
morphological and cytological evidence.
Pseudobahia peirsonii, like Pseudobahia bahiifolia, is a member of
the Asteraceae family and is an erect annual herb about 1 to 6
decimeters (dm) (4 to 18 in.) tall, loosely covered with white, wooly
hairs. Its alternate leaves are twice divided into smaller divisions
(bipinnatifid), triangular in outline, and 2 to 6 cm (1 to 3 in.) in
length. Flower heads, which appear in March or April, are solitary at
the ends of the branches. The ray flowers are bright yellow and equal
in number to the subfloral bracts and about 3 millimeters (mm) (0.1
in.) long with many disk flowers; the pappus is absent. The dry fruits,
called achenes, are black. Pseudobahia peirsonii is distinguished from
Pseudobahia heermani, the species most similar in appearance, primarily
by its subfloral bracts, which are united only at the base versus
united to half their length in the latter species.
Pseudobahia peirsonii occurs only on heavy adobe clay soils over a
range of approximately 193 km (120 mi) through Fresno, Tulare, and Kern
counties. One population occurs on land owned and managed by the Fresno
Flood Control District; two populations occur on land owned by the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); all other populations occur on
privately owned land (CNDDB 1996). Stebbins (1991) speculates that the
edaphic restriction is associated with the ability of these clay soils
to retain moisture longer into the summer dry season. These soils are
mainly distributed in the valleys and flats near the foothills of the
southeastern San Joaquin Valley (Stebbins 1991). Avena fatua, Brassica
kaber, Bromus mollis, Bromus rubens, and Erodium cicutarium are some of
the common nonnative associates of Pseudobahia peirsonii (Stebbins
1991). The intrusive and aggressive characteristics of herbaceous weedy
species appear to be detrimental to habitat quality of this rare plant.
Pseudobahia peirsonii is concentrated in three major locations--
east of Fresno in Fresno County; west of Lake Success in Tulare County;
and northeast of Bakersfield in Kern County. Of the 36 known
occurrences, 20 are small and contain fewer than 250 plants (Stebbins
1991; Karen and Gregory Kirkpatrick, KAS Consultants, in litt. 1993;
CNDDB 1996). Approximately 80 percent of all plants are contained in 4
populations (CNDDB 1996, Mark Mebane, rancher, in litt. 1993).
Conversion of natural habitat to residential development is the primary
threat to Pseudobahia peirsonii. In addition, road maintenance
projects, recreational activities, competition from nonnative plants,
ag-land development, incompatible grazing practices, a flood control
project, transmission line maintenance, and other human impacts also
may threaten the species.
[[Page 5544]]
Previous Federal Action
Federal government actions on these two plants began as a result of
section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. The report,
designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on
January 9, 1975. In the report, Pseudobahia bahiifolia was included as
a threatened species and Pseudobahia peirsonii as an endangered
species.
On July 1, 1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal
Register (40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report as a petition
within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3) of the Act),
and its intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named
therein. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii were included
in that notice. On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposed rule
in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700
vascular plant species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4
of the Act. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of
comments and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the
Service in response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975,
Federal Register publication. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and the
Pseudobahia peirsonii were included in the June 16, 1976 Federal
Register document.
General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR
17909). The Act Amendments of 1978 required that all existing proposals
over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those
proposals already more than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the
Service published a notice in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) of
withdrawal of that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not
been made final, along with four proposals that had expired due to a
procedural requirement of the 1978 Amendments.
On December 15, 1980, the Service published a revised Notice of
Review of native plants in the Federal Register (45 FR 82480).
Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii were included as
category 1 candidate species, meaning that the Service had in its
possession substantial information on biological vulnerability and
threats to support preparation of a listing proposal. On November 28,
1983, the Service published in the Federal Register (48 FR 53640) a
supplement to the 1980 Notice of Review. This supplement treated
Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii as category 2 species,
meaning that the data in the Service's possession indicated listing may
be appropriate, but that substantial data on biological vulnerability
and threats were not currently known or on file to support preparation
of a proposed rule. The plant notice was again revised on September 27,
1985 (50 FR 39526). Both species remained in category 2. In the
February 21, 1990, revision of the plant notice (55 FR 6184),
Pseudobahia bahiifolia remained as a category 2 candidate species and
Pseudobahia peirsonii returned to category 1 status. On February 28,
1996, the Service published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register
(61 FR 7596) that discontinued the designation of category 2 species as
candidates.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make
findings on certain pending petitions within 12 months of their
receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that
all petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been
newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Pseudobahia
bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii because the 1975 Smithsonian
report had been accepted as a petition. On October 13, 1983, the
Service found that the petitioned listing of these species was
warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act; notification of
this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a
finding required the petition to be recycled, pursuant to section
4(b)(3)(c)(I) of the Act. The finding was reviewed annually in October
of 1984 through 1991.
A proposed rule to list Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia
peirsonii as endangered was published in the Federal Register on
November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56549). That proposal was based, in large
part, on the status survey and occurrence data, and information on
pending projects that would adversely affect the two species.
Pseudobahia bahiifolia was included in the proposal after a review of
existing information indicated that the species should be assigned
category 1 status and that the proposal for listing was warranted. The
Service now determines Pseudobahia bahiifolia to be an endangered
species and Pseudobahia peirsonii to be a threatened species with the
publication of this rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the November 30, 1992, proposed rule (57 FR 56549) and
associated notifications, all interested parties were requested to
submit factual reports or information to assist the Service in
determining whether these two species warrant listing. Appropriate
Federal and State agencies, county and city governments, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting general comment were
published on December 16, 1992, in the Hanford Sentinel, and
Porterville Recorder; on December 17, 1992, in the Bakersfield
Californian, Fresno Bee, Madera Daily Tribune, Modesto Bee, Union
Democrat, and Advance-Register; and on December 18, 1992, in the
Visalia Times-Delta. The Service received written requests for a public
hearing from Congressman Bill Thomas, Kern County Farm Bureau, Tulare
County Cattlemen's Association, and Kern County Cattlemen's
Association. As a result, the Service published a notice of a public
hearing on April 2, 1993 (58 FR 17376), and extended the deadline for
the comment period to May 3, 1993. The Service conducted the public
hearing on April 21, 1993, at the Kern County Administrative Center
Board Chambers in Bakersfield, California.
During the comment period, the Service received 28 comments
(letters and oral testimony), including representatives from a Federal
agency, a State agency, a County agency, and 21 individuals. Eight
commenters supported listing, 15 opposed listing or favored delaying
the listing, and five were neutral. In addition, several individuals
presented oral and written testimony during the public comment period
concerning the 1989 Tulare Pseudobahia Species Management Plan, written
for the California Department of Fish and Game. This document was not
written for the Service, nor was it used to support the Federal listing
action of the two species. Comments or portions of comments that were
submitted to the Service addressing this plan are considered not
substantive and are not considered in the response section of this
rule.
Written comments or oral statements obtained during the public
hearing and comment period are combined in the following discussion.
Opposing comments and comments questioning the listing have been
organized into specific issues. The majority of comments concerned
Pseudobahia peirsonii. These issues and the Service's
[[Page 5545]]
response to each are summarized as follows:
Issue 1
The status survey covered only known documented sites; the listing
should be delayed until a more thorough survey is conducted.
Service Response
The field survey for both species (Stebbins 1991) examined 55
previously documented sites. Data from observations at the known sites
were used to identify suitable habitat areas to search for undocumented
populations of the two species. As a result, 69 additional sites within
and adjoining the population concentrations within the ranges of the
species were explored. It should be noted that, in cases where access
was denied by private landowners of historical sites, these sites were
not surveyed. The current status on these sites is unknown. Surveys
conducted on Pseudobahia peirsonii after 1990, showed that many
populations continued to decrease in size during 1991 and 1992 in spite
of increased rainfall (J. Stebbins, California State University,
Fresno, pers. comm. 1993). One commenter who supported the listing of
Pseudobahia peirsonii, submitted additional population data from an
extensive survey conducted in Tulare County in 1992. This information
has been incorporated into this rule. This commenter also noted that
portions of eastern Kern County contain the only remaining suitable
Pseudobahia peirsonii habitat that has not been thoroughly surveyed for
the species. A landowner in Kern County commented that he discovered
one population that had been presumed extirpated in the status survey,
as well as four previously unrecorded populations, the largest of which
contained approximately 10,000 plants. Information on all newly
recorded populations has been incorporated into this rule. Much of the
suitable habitat for these species has been surveyed. In the period of
time since the publication of the proposed rule in 1993, no data have
been presented to contradict the Service's contention that these
species are imperiled by habitat loss and other threats described in
the Summary of Factors. The Service believes that sufficient
information is available on these species to warrant determination of
Pseudobahia bahiifolia as endangered and Pseudobahia peirsonii as
threatened.
Issue 2
The Service should consider economic effects in determining whether
to list these species under the Act.
Service Response
Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listing determination must
be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.
The legislative history of this provision clearly states the intent of
Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based solely on
biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from
affecting such decisions'', H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
19 (1982). As further stated in the legislative history, ``Applying
economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species listing process is
applying economics to the determinations made under section 4 of the
Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of the word
``solely'' in this legislation.'' H.R. Rep. No. 567, part I, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1982).
Issue 3
Extensive grazing poses no threat to Pseudobahia peirsonii.
Populations of this species have been grazed for 100 years or more with
no adverse effects. Grazing is necessary for the species to compete
against aggressive weeds.
Service Response
Any assessment of the historical range and population size of the
species is complicated by the fact that most records of plant
populations were begun after widespread agricultural development had
occurred (Stebbins 1991). No range or population data exists for
Pseudobahia peirsonii prior to 1925, the year this species was first
collected by Phillip Munz. All known extant populations are found in
grazed grasslands dominated by nonnative grasses and forbs. Populations
not grazed by domestic livestock are unknown. Because the extent and
size of populations prior to introduction of domestic livestock is also
unknown, it cannot be shown that there has been no historical decline
in Pseudobahia peirsonii due to grazing.
Appropriate grazing practices may, in fact, prove beneficial to
Pseudobahia peirsonii. Some populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii appear
to be stable under current grazing practices at their sites (CNDDB
1996). Grazing reduces the cover and probably the amount of seed
produced by weedy species that compete with Pseudobahia peirsonii.
Several botanists experienced with Pseudobahia peirsonii commented that
``well-managed, moderate'' grazing is conducive to the survival of the
plant and that ``removing the cattle entirely can promote the rapid
growth of nonnative plants against which Pseudobahia peirsonii has
difficulty competing.'' Timing of grazing also may affect weedy species
abundance. A controlled sheep grazing study showed that early spring
grazing resulted in a higher frequency of native grasses than did later
grazing (Amme and Pitschel 1989).
Inappropriate grazing practices may, however, be detrimental to the
species in several ways. Soil disturbance by grazing animals may allow
nonnative or weedy species that are adapted to growing in disturbed
sites to become established (Zedler 1987); these species may, for
various reasons, have an advantage over Pseudobahia peirsonii in
competition for water, light, or nutrients. Excessive trampling by
livestock also can degrade habitat by compacting the soil and promoting
erosion. Although the palatability of Pseudobahia peirsonii to cattle
is unknown, grazing animals are less selective at heavy grazing
pressure when less forage is available per animal (Kothmann 1983). Any
remaining plants, therefore, have a higher probability of being grazed.
This increased grazing pressure in turn affects seed production and can
result in population decline (Heady 1961). Reduced population sizes
during periods of drought may be more susceptible to the impacts of
inappropriate grazing practices. Over half of all known populations of
Pseudobahia peirsonii had fewer than 250 individuals in 1991.
Issue 4
The status survey was conducted in a drought year, which resulted
in abnormally low population counts.
Service Response
The Service used the best available data at the time the proposal
was written. It was not possible to predict the duration of the drought
or to postpone the survey until a favorable rainfall year. Although the
drought may have had adverse effects on the size of the Pseudobahia
peirsonii populations, surveys conducted on Pseudobahia peirsonii after
1990 revealed that despite increased rainfall, many populations
continued to decrease in size during 1991 and 1992. Observations made
in the spring of 1993 showed that most populations covered more area
and contained more plants than in previous years; however, extirpated
sites did not reappear (J. Stebbins, pers. comm. 1993). Population
counts of annual species would be expected to fluctuate yearly
according to climatic conditions.
[[Page 5546]]
Moreover, the factors threatening the remaining habitat of these
species are not diminished by annual population fluctuations. As stated
earlier, no data have been presented to contradict the Service's
contention that these species are threatened by factors described in
the Summary of Factors.
Issue 5
The sampling period for Pseudobahia peirsonii (1 month during 1
year), was too short; more sites may have been found during a longer
sampling period.
Service Response
Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia are small annual
plants with a short blooming period of 3 to 4 weeks in March and April.
The period of time in which population surveys can be conducted most
efficiently is during the blooming period, when the plants are most
readily detectible and identifiable. The plants are less visible later
in the year as the surrounding vegetation becomes denser and
Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia begin to produce seed
and die. To determine the range of both species, all sites from
historical records, as well as potential sites, were surveyed during
this 1 month period. The goal of the survey was not to determine actual
plant numbers but rather the location, condition, and relative size of
the populations and habitat. Actual plant numbers are not as useful an
index of population health as is condition of occupied habitat and
general population condition. Annual species can vary widely from year
to year in numbers of plants due to variation in environmental
conditions. The Service believes that the properly-timed survey period
during 1990 was appropriate to evaluate the status of both species. No
significant distributional data affecting the status of either species
has been reported during subsequent surveys. Although several new
populations have been reported, most are small, isolated, occur within
the known range of the species, and are threatened by the same
activities affecting previously known populations.
Issue 6
The status survey was not ``peer-reviewed'' before being accepted
by the Service; all data were collected by one botanist and, therefore,
subject to personal bias.
Service Response
During the compilation of the document, the author of the survey
consulted frequently with several respected botanists, all of whom had
recent experience with Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia
bahiifolia. Historical population data were compiled by CNDDB from
records dating back to 1897. Field data from 1990 were collected by
several technicians and were field checked by the author.
Issue 7
Statements contained in the proposed rule concerning the low
numbers of seeds of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii in
the seed bank are speculative because no samples were taken.
Service Response
Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii, when growing in
marginal habitats, produce few seeds in comparison to the vigorous seed
output of the surrounding nonnative grasses and forbs (Stebbins, pers.
comm., 1993). All remaining populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and
Pseudobahia peirsonii are considered to occur in marginal or degraded
habitat dominated by nonnative species and may suffer from reduced seed
output resulting from poor physical condition and competition (J.
Stebbins, pers. comm., 1993). In addition to proportionally low seed
input to the seed bank, the overall seed bank of these two species may
become smaller if reduction in population size and consequent reduction
in seed production occurs.
Issue 8
No populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii are threatened by highway
construction.
Service Response
The status of the highway construction projects discussed in the
proposed rule has been reviewed. The present status of these projects
indicates that they do not pose a threat to the species; the final rule
has been revised to reflect this information. Nine populations of
Pseudobahia peirsonii, however, are threatened by county and private
road maintenance as mentioned under Factor A of Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species.
Issue 9
Current zoning laws and economic conditions make future protection
an unnecessary duplication of existing regulations.
Service Response
As was previously stated in the proposed rule (57 FR 56549),
existing State and local regulations are inadequate to protect these
species. Nearly all populations of both species occur entirely on
private land. State and Federal laws are limited in their ability to
regulate potentially detrimental activities on private property.
Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia are listed as
endangered under the Natural Plant Protection Act of 1977 and the
California Endangered Species Act of 1984. Although both statutes
prohibit the ``take'' of State listed species, State law exempts the
taking of plant species via habitat modification or land use change by
the landowner. Current county zoning ordinances do not offer protection
from land conversion. In each of the five counties in which the two
species occur, no ordinances exist that regulate the conversion of land
use from grazing to agricultural use. The Madera County General Plan
states that the proposed permitted residential development in that
county likely will result in the significant degradation or complete
elimination of the two populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia that occur
in Madera County (Madera County Planning Department 1994). These
populations represent approximately half of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia
plants. The majority of habitat loss that has already occurred for both
species has been a result of conversion of natural land to agricultural
use. Current economic conditions do not represent a safeguard against
future development and change in land use.
Issue 10
The status survey on which the listing is partially based was
unpublished and not available to the public before the species were
proposed to be listed.
Service Response
The status survey was prepared to assist the Service in compiling
available scientific and commercial information, including additional
field surveys and habitat evaluation. The status report was completed
in January 1991 and has been available to the public upon request since
that time.
Issue 11
Methods used to collect population data for the status survey were
not scientific and not described.
Service Response
The method used to examine the populations of both species was a
meandering transect (Stebbins, pers. comm. 1993). This is an
established method for surveying for rare plant species (Nelson 1985).
Population data consisting of numbers and size class
[[Page 5547]]
distribution of individual plants were collected. Additionally, data
relating to physical site characteristics, physiographic and
topographic characteristics, edaphic and erosion factors, and
vegetation type and associated species were collected and discussed in
the status survey (Stebbins 1991). These environmental characteristics
are widely accepted as important information upon which to partially
determine habitat viability and suitability, and population threats.
Issue 12
Threats to Pseudobahia peirsonii from agriculture are opinions of
the author of the status survey and are not supported by facts.
Service Response
Historically, many populations of both species have probably been
lost to agriculture. Pseudobahia peirsonii is restricted to the heavy
clay soil type found in the valleys and flats which is used for row
crops and orchards. With increased irrigation, foothill areas also are
being converted for agriculture. Of the 30 historic populations of this
species surveyed in 1990, eight were found to have been extirpated due
to conversion of land use to agriculture (Stebbins 1991). Six remaining
populations are adjacent to farm land and may be converted to
agricultural use in the future. Several other sites currently are used
only for grazing, but also could face conversion to agriculture because
of proximity to active agricultural land.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and regulations (50 CFR part
424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set
forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists of
endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to
Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Bentham) Rydberg (Hartweg's golden sunburst)
and Pseudobahia peirsonii Munz (San Joaquin adobe sunburst) are as
follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and
Pseudobahia peirsonii are restricted to specific habitats in nonnative
valley grassland and occasionally the grassland-woodland ecotone of the
San Joaquin Valley and neighboring foothills. The primary threat facing
the two plants is ongoing and threatened destruction and adverse
modification of their habitat. The habitat of the two species is being
threatened or eliminated primarily by residential development. Ag-land
development, a flood control project, competition from nonnative
plants, incompatible grazing practices, mining, recreational activities
(including ORVs), transmission line maintenance, road maintenance, and
other human impacts pose threats to these species.
Urbanization and ag-land development eliminated the type locality
in Yuba County, the only documented occurrence of this plant in the
Sacramento Valley. The species likely was extirpated in the area
between Stanislaus and Yuba counties before other collections were
documented, as valley soils in this area were rapidly converted to
agricultural use in the late 1800's (Stebbins 1991). Pseudobahia
bahiifolia is now known only from 16 sites in two localized areas in
the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley--the Friant region in
Madera and Fresno counties, and the Cooperstown-La Grange region in
Stanislaus County (CNDDB 1996). Habitat alteration from residential
development, ag-land development, ORVs, and mining threatens
populations of Pseudobahia bahiifolia in all three counties.
Two historical occurrences of Pseudobahia bahiifolia have been
eliminated or seriously degraded in Madera County by conversion to
orchards, mining, unauthorized dumping, and grazing. The remaining
populations in Madera County are threatened by residential development.
The Madera County General Plan states that the proposed permitted
residential development in that county will likely result in the
complete elimination or significant degradation of the two populations
that occur in Madera County (Madera County Planning Department 1995).
These populations represent approximately half of all Pseudobahia
bahiifolia plants. Habitat supporting the plants is proposed to be
replaced by low density residential housing. In addition, these Madera
County occurrences are threatened by quarry activities and ORV use
(Stebbins 1991). The largest of these two populations, containing
approximately 16,000 plants, is located 0.3 km (0.2 mi) north of a
pumicite quarry. Ongoing quarry operations and associated ORV use may
damage this population, which likely represents a fragment of an even
larger population that once occurred west of Cottonwood Creek and east
of State Route 145, north of the San Joaquin River at Friant Bridge.
Off road vehicle use occurs throughout the area (Stebbins 1991). A
similar quarry in Stanislaus County is located 0.4 km (0.25 mi) east of
the second largest population of Pseudobahia bahiifolia. Although there
are no current plans to expand either mining operation, the threat of
expansion is dependent on product demand.
In Fresno County, one population grows on three land parcels, two
of which are protected. One parcel is jointly managed by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and The Nature Conservancy and one parcel is
protected by conservation easement. The third parcel is in private
ownership and is threatened by incompatible grazing practices and
residential development. The other Fresno County population occurs
entirely on private lands. Both privately-held Fresno County
occurrences are threatened by urbanization associated with the
``Millerton New Town'' development, the Friant Redevelopment Plan,
incompatible grazing practices, and water tank access and maintenance
(Stebbins 1991).
In the Cooperstown-La Grange area of Stanislaus County, three of
the remaining 12 occurrences are variously threatened by ORV,
incompatible grazing practices, erosion resulting from over grazing,
potential quarry expansion, and ag-land development (Stebbins 1991). At
one of the three threatened sites, habitat was present but no
Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants were found during the 1990 survey. The
remaining nine populations, all of which occur on private land, are
small, containing less than 250 plants each. Although the populations
appear to be stable under current grazing practices, they may suffer if
grazing pressures or land use is changed.
Pseudobahia peirsonii is known from 36 sites in Fresno, Tulare, and
Kern counties (Stebbins 1991; K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993; M.
Mebane, in litt. 1993; CNDDB, 1996). Habitat loss and alteration from
increased urbanization are the primary threats to Pseudobahia
peirsonii. Transmission line maintenance, ag-land development, water
projects, inappropriate grazing practices, and road construction and
maintenance also threaten populations of this species. These activities
collectively have reduced the species to a small number of isolated
colonies that occur in three areas in three counties in the
southeastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley--the Round Mountain
region in Fresno County, the Porterville-Fountain Springs region in
Tulare County, and the Pine Mountain-Woody
[[Page 5548]]
region in Kern County. Ag-land development, urbanization, flooding and
shore erosion at Lake Success, recreational activities, grazing, and
water projects have extirpated eight historical occurrences, all of
which were in Tulare County.
Until recently, two of the largest known populations of Pseudobahia
peirsonii, comprising approximately 34 percent of all plants of this
species, were found in Fresno County. Both populations have now been
impacted by habitat alteration. The largest population, containing
approximately 5,000 plants spread over 1.2 hectares (ha) (3 acres
(ac)), is being impacted by a large, residential project (Quail Lakes)
and an adjacent, recreational water park (Clovis Lakes). The Quail
Lakes project, currently under construction, consists of a 20.4 ha (51-
ac) lake and 730 housing units spread over 152 ha (375 ac) (Valley
Planning Consultants, Inc. 1993, EIP 1993). Part of the mitigation for
the project includes preservation of the two highest density of four
subpopulations of Pseudobahia peirsonii on the site and the
establishment of a third new subpopulation using topsoil salvaged from
an area to be destroyed. The salvaged topsoil would be planted with
seeds collected from a high density population eliminated by the
project. The success of the proposed mitigation is unknown. Frequently,
propagation of rare species is not successful. In a study funded by
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the success of 40
projects attempting to transplant, relocate, or reintroduce endangered
or threatened plant species in California, was evaluated; only 20
percent of the projects were deemed fully successful (Fiedler 1991).
The second largest population of Pseudobahia peirsonii, also
located in Fresno County, had nearly 4,500 plants spread over 17 ha (42
ac), and was located in the Fancher Creek Reservoir Project Area. The
Fancher Creek Reservoir Project was constructed several years ago by
the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District to temporarily detain
water during flood periods. which it has done at various times over the
past two years. The project was predicted to impact approximately 40
percent of this population (Jones and Stokes 1990). The three other
Fresno County sites are threatened variously by the proposed
residential expansion in the greater Fresno area, ag-land development,
incompatible grazing practices, competition from nonnative plants, and
livestock trampling (Stebbins 1991).
Most Tulare County populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii lie in the
Porterville-Fountain Springs area, although several small, isolated
populations recently have been discovered in the northern part of the
county (K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993). Maintenance and repair
of the Southern California Edison transmission lines pose a potential
threat to two Tulare County populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii
located under the transmission line right-of-way south of Fountain
Springs. Another population, located near the high water line at Lake
Success east of Porterville could be impacted or extirpated by
inundation or erosion resulting from a rise in water level. Although
the Corps has no current plans to increase water storage, such a
project has been proposed in the recent past.
Numerous other human impacts threaten populations of Pseudobahia
peirsonii. In Fresno County, potentially harmful runoff from State
Route 180 may impact a population growing on both sides of the highway
on the soft shoulder (Stebbins 1991). Road stabilization and
maintenance practices threaten four populations in Kern County, three
in Tulare County, and two in Fresno County (Stebbins 1991; K. and G.
Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; CNDDB 1996). Off road vehicle use and
hiking threaten one population of approximately 200 plants spread over
1.2 ha (3 ac) in Tulare County.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. There are no known significant existing or
potential threats to Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii
as a result of these activities. However, the increased publicity
associated with proposing these species may make them attractive to
researchers and collectors of rare plants.
C. Disease or predation. Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia
peirsonii have been subjected to various levels of livestock grazing.
Several populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii appear to be stable under
the current grazing practices on their sites (CNDDB 1996). Stebbins
(1991) concluded that moderate levels of grazing help to control the
aggressive nonnative forbs and grasses against which Pseudobahia
bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii must compete in their respective
habitat areas. Others have also noted that livestock grazing appears to
be compatible and possibly beneficial to Pseudobahia peirsonii if
managed properly, and that the biggest threat to the species comes not
from routine and moderate grazing practices, but from land conversion
or extensive overgrazing of the population sites (K. and G.
Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; R. Hansen, in litt., 1993; T. Mallory, in
litt., 1993). Both Pseudobahia species may benefit, in particular, from
a reduction of grazing levels during flowering and fruiting in March
and April. Excessive trampling of the plants by livestock may also be
detrimental because of direct and indirect effects of soil compaction
on soil-water relations and erosion. One historical occurrence in
Tulare County of Pseudobahia peirsonii is thought to have been
extirpated by incompatible grazing practices (Stebbins 1991).
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Nearly all
populations of both plants occur entirely on private land. State and
Federal laws are limited in their ability to regulate potentially
detrimental human activities on private property (Clausen 1989). For
example, local zoning ordinances in the five counties in which both
species occur, do not regulate the conversion of open rangeland to ag-
land. Under the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Chapter 10
Sec. 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) and California
Endangered Species Act of 1984 (Chapter 1.5 Sec. 2050 et seq.), the
California Fish and Game Commission has listed both Pseudobahia
bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii as endangered (14 California Code
of Regulations Section 670.2). Though both statutes prohibit the
``take'' of State-listed plants (Chapter 10 Sec. 1908 and Chapter 1.5
Sec. 2080), State law exempts the taking of such plants via habitat
modification or land use change by the landowner. After the CDFG
notifies a landowner that a State-listed plant grows on his or her
property, State law requires only that the landowner notify the agency
``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow
possible salvage of such plant.'' (Chapter 10 Sec. 1913).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full
public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed
projects. The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over
the project is designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for
conducting a review of the project and consulting with other agencies
concerned with resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the
CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a project has the
potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal.'' Once significant impacts are identified,
the project agency has the option to require mitigation for effects
through changes in the project or to decide that overriding
considerations
[[Page 5549]]
make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects may be
approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as
destruction of endangered species. Protection of listed species through
CEQA is therefore at the discretion of the project agency involved.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The typical variation in rainfall characteristics of the
regional climate very likely will subject populations of both species
to periodic drought, which may threaten the remaining small, marginal
populations of both species. Marginal habitat conditions and past
disturbances could exacerbate already critically low population sizes
and decrease the amount and/or viability of stored seed banks for both
species. Annuals and other monocarpic plants (individuals that die
after flowering and fruiting), like both species considered herein, may
be more vulnerable to random fluctuations or variation (stochasticity)
in annual weather patterns and other environmental factors than plant
species with different life histories (Huenneke et al. 1986). Fifty
percent of all populations of both species have been observed with
fewer than 100 plants, which may make them more vulnerable to random
chance extirpation (Stebbins 1991, K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt.
1993). Moreover, nonnative species germinate in late fall and likely
outcompete Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii for
sunlight, nutrients, and water. Competition from nonnative plants
threatens the Pseudobahia bahiifolia population at the botanical
preserve in Fresno County (Rosalie Faubion, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
pers. comm. 1992). Competition from nonnative plants also threatens
four occurrences of Pseudobahia peirsonii in Tulare County (Stebbins
1991, K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993). The invasion of nonnative
plants likely has been a significant factor in the degradation of the
habitat of both plants throughout their respective ranges (Heady 1977,
Amme and Pitschel 1989).
The Service has assessed carefully the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by both species in determining to make this rule
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list
Pseudobahia bahiifolia as endangered and Pseudobahia peirsonii as
threatened. Both species occupy specific habitat within a restricted
geographic area. All remaining populations of both species are
considered to occur in marginal or degraded habitat (J. Stebbins, pers.
comm. 1993). Remaining habitat is highly fragmented and most remaining
populations are quite small. The largest populations of both species
are imminently threatened by residential development. In addition, a
significant portion of the remaining range of both species is
threatened by ag-land development, a flood control project, mining,
grazing, and competition from nonnative species.
Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants occur in two
general locations. One site, approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) long and
containing about 16,000 plants, is the remnant of one large population
that now has become fragmented. This occurrence, representing
approximately half of all plants of this species, is proposed to be
eliminated by a residential development project. The second large
population contains approximately 15,000 plants and is located 0.4 km
(0.25 mi) from a quarry. Although there are no current plans to expand
the quarry, the threat of quarry expansion is dependent on product
demand. Moreover, degradation from off-road vehicle use on these sites
is on-going. Grazing occurs at both locations and appears to be
accelerating soil erosion at the smaller site. Neither of these two
sites is protected.
Over 80 percent of Pseudobahia peirsonii plants occur at 4 sites;
32 additional smaller sites contain 1,000 plants or fewer. The Quail
Lakes population, largest of all known populations with 18 percent of
the total plant population, is being impacted by urban development. The
second largest population, with 16 percent of the total plant
population, lies in the Fancher Creek Flood Control Project area. This
project, completed several years ago, was predicted to impact 40
percent of the population. Gradual conversion of range land in eastern
San Joaquin Valley to residential use also threatens the species (J.
Stebbins pers. comm. 1996). Anthropogenic actions have degraded and
reduced the habitat of most of the remaining populations. As a result,
Pseudobahia bahiifolia is in danger of extinction and Pseudobahia
peirsonii is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their
ranges.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat
concurrently with determining a species to be endangered or threatened.
The Service finds that the determination of critical habitat is not
prudent for either species at this time. Because the two species face
numerous anthropogenic threats (see Factor A, Factor C, and Factor E in
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'') and occur
predominantly on private land, the publication of precise maps and
descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register would make
both plants more vulnerable to incidents of vandalism and, therefore,
could contribute to the decline of the two plants. The listing of these
species also publicizes the rarity of the plants and, thus, may make
them attractive to researchers or collectors of rare plants. The proper
agencies will be notified of the location and importance of protecting
the habitat of both species. Protection of both species' habitat will
be addressed through the recovery process and through the section 7
consultation process.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The Act provides for land acquisition and cooperation
with the State and requires that recovery actions be carried out for
all listed species. Such actions are initiated by the Service following
listing. The protection required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is being designated. Regulations implementing
[[Page 5550]]
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50
CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal involvement for these species is expected to include the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates, as part of the Central
Valley Project, the Friant-Kern canal system located within 0.4 km
(0.25 mile) of six Pseudobahia bahiifolia and two Pseudobahia peirsonii
populations. In addition, the Corps operates the facilities at Lake
Success located within 0.8 km (0.50 mi) of three Pseudobahia peirsonii
colonies and sponsored the Redbank-Fancher Creek Flood Control Project,
which currently impacts another Pseudobahia peirsonii colony near Round
Mountain. Any future construction or maintenance activities on these
government projects that may affect the plant populations, as well as
water contract renewals, would require section 7 consultation with the
Service. The Service may develop, in cooperation with other
knowledgeable parties, grazing recommendations for habitats supporting
the two species. The goal of the recommendations would be to encourage
grazing practices which, if implemented, would benefit growth and
reproduction of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii.
A Pseudobahia bahiifolia population in Fresno County is provided
some protection on one parcel by joint management by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) and the Bureau of Reclamation, and on a second parcel
by a conservation easement between a private landowner and TNC. This
site is difficult to protect, however, because of its proximity to
residential housing, the Friant-Kern Canal, and a Friant water tank.
The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61,
17.62, and 17.63 for endangered plant species and 17.71 and 17.72 for
threatened plant species set forth a series of general prohibitions and
exceptions that apply to all endangered or threatened plants. With
respect to Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii, all trade
prohibitions of sections 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR
17.61 or 17.71, would apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale these species in interstate or foreign commerce;
or remove and reduce to possession these species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. Other prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act
make it illegal to maliciously damage or destroy any such plant species
on any area under Federal jurisdiction; or to remove, cut, dig up,
damage, or destroy any such plant species on any other area in knowing
violation of any State law or regulation or in the course of any
violation of a State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions can
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. The Act
and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also provides for the issuance of
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving
endangered or threatened plant species under certain circumstances. The
Service anticipates few trade permits would ever be sought or issued
for the two species because the plants are not common in cultivation or
in the wild.
It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness
of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within
a species' range. Populations of both species occur on Federal lands.
Collection, damage, or destruction of the two species on Federal lands
is prohibited, although, in appropriate cases, a Federal endangered
species permit may be issued to allow collection for scientific or
recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal lands would
constitute a violation of California State laws or regulations.
California law requires a ten day notice be given before taking of
plants on private land. Activities, such as landscape maintenance, and
clearing vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock grazing on privately-
owned lands not under Federal funding or authorization, would not be
considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of
the Service's Sacramento Field Office. Requests for copies of the
regulations on plants and inquires regarding them may be addressed to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Endangered
Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
(phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/231-6243).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental
Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section
4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection
requirements. This rulemaking was not subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this rule is Elizabeth Warne, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under [FLOWERING PLANTS], to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants to read as follows:
[[Page 5551]]
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Family Status When Critical Special rules
Scientific name Common name listed habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Pseudobahia bahiifolia.......... Hartweg's golden U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... E 609 NA NA
sunburst.
Pseudobahia peirsonii........... San Joaquin adobe U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... T 609 NA NA
sunburst.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 5, 1996.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-2875 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
