30938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

compliance with 14 CFR part 21 and the

airworthiness requirements of 14 CFR

part 23, protection against hazards

caused by exposure to HIRF fields for

the full authority digital engine control

system which performs critical

functions, must be considered. To

prevent this occurrence, the electronic

engine control system must be designed

and installed to ensure that the

operation and operational capabilities of

this critical system are not adversely

affected when the airplane is exposed to

high energy radio fields.

At this time, the FAA and other

airworthiness authorities are unable to

precisely define or control the HIRF

energy level to which the airplane will

be exposed in service; therefore, the

FAA hereby defines two acceptable

interim methods for complying with the

requirement for protection of systems

that perform critical functions.

(1) The applicant may demonstrate

that the operation and operational

capability of the installed electrical and

electronic systems that perform critical

functions are not adversely affected

when the aircraft is exposed to the

external HIRF threat environment

defined in the following table:

Field strength

(volts per meter)

Frequency Peak Average

10 kHz–100 kHz 50 50

100 kHz–500

kHz ................ 50 50

500 kHz–2 MHz 50 50

2 MHz–30 MHz 100 100

30 MHz–70 MHz 50 50

70 MHz–100

MHz ............... 50 50

100 MHz–200

MHz ............... 100 100

200 MHz–400

MHz ............... 100 100

400 MHz–700

MHz ............... 700 50

700 MHz–1 GHz 700 100

1 GHz–2 GHz ... 2000 200

2 GHz–4 GHz ... 3000 200

4 GHz–6 GHz ... 3000 200

6 GHz–8 GHz ... 1000 200

8 GHz–12 GHz 3000 300

12 GHz–18 GHz 2000 200

18 GHz–40 GHz 600 200

The field strengths are expressed in terms

of peak root-mean-square (rms) values.

or,

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by

a system test and analysis that the

electrical and electronic systems that

perform critical functions can withstand

a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter

peak electrical strength, without the

benefit of airplane structural shielding,

in the frequency range of 10 KHz to 18

GHz. When using this test to show

compliance with the HIRF

requirements, no credit is given for

signal attenuation due to installation.

Data used for engine certification may

be used, when appropriate, for airplane

certification.

2. Electronic Engine Control System.

The installation items that affect the

electronic engine control system must

comply with the requirements of

§ 23.1309(a) through (e) including

applicable amendments through

Amendment 23–53. Data used for

engine certification may be used, when

appropriate, for airplane certification.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April

28, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12142 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–98–090]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,

Norfolk, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised

its proposal to change the regulations

governing the operation of the Norfolk

and Western Railroad drawbridge across

the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth

River, mile 2.7, at Norfolk, Virginia. The

revised proposal would require onsignal openings from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

using a half-cycle draw operation and

would reduce the advance notice

required at other times from 3 hours to

2 hours. This change would provide for

the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to the Commander

(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District,

Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia

23704–5004, or they may be handdelivered to the same address between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

Commander (Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard

District maintains the public docket for

this rulemaking. Comments and

material received from the public, as

well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection and

copying at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

Deaton, Bridge Administrator, Fifth

Coast Guard District, (757) 398–6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (CGD05–98–090),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know they reached us, please enclose

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to Commander

(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the

address under ADDRESSES explaining

why one would be beneficial. If we

determine that one would aid this

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.

Regulatory History

On November 2, 1998, the Coast

Guard published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NRPM) entitled

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,

Norfolk, Virginia’’ in the Federal

Register (63 FR 58676). We also

distributed local notice of the Federal

Register publication. We received 652

comments on the proposed rule. Most of

the comments included a request for a

public hearing, but based on the number

of comments and the issues addressed

by the comments, we determined that a

public hearing would not provide

additional information to aid the

rulemaking process.

Background and Purpose

The Norfolk and Western Railroad

drawbridge is owned and operated by

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC).

The regulations at 33 CFR 117.1007(a)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30939

require the bridge to open on signal

from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and require a

three-hour advance notice for openings

from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. all year.

NSC initially requested a change to

the regulations that would have reduced

the hours during the day and times of

the year when on-signal openings are

required. Specifically, they requested

that the drawbridge only be required to

open on signal from April 15 to

September 30, Monday through

Thursday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and

Friday through Sunday from 6 a.m. to

11 p.m. At all other times, the

drawbridge would open only after a

three-hour advance notice.

NSC based their request on data from

the 1996 and 1997 drawlogs. The logs

show that from April to October during

the weekdays (Monday through

Thursday) from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and

during the weekends (Friday through

Sunday) from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., the

waterway traffic was at its peak. From

6 p.m. to 10 a.m. weekdays, and from

11 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekends during these

same months, NSC suggested that

waterway traffic decreased sufficiently

to justify placing the bridge in advancenotice status. NSC also claimed that

reduced maritime traffic from October to

April justified a three-hour advance

notice requirement for bridge openings

during that period.

We reviewed all of the drawlogs and

found that waterway traffic, particularly

recreational, remained active through

October and November. From December

to mid-April, recreational waterway

traffic decreased by 80% while

commercial waterway traffic remained

steady. The information provided by

NSC showed that during October and

November 1996, the number of draw

openings were 86 and 73, respectively.

During October and November 1997, the

number of openings were 88 and 59,

respectively. During the months of June,

July and August of 1996, the number of

openings were 180, 106, and 137. In

1997 during the same months, the

number of openings were 155, 107, and

148. Even though draw openings

decreased from October through

November when compared to the peak

summer months, we decided that the

needs of maritime traffic required that

the months of October and November be

included in the on-signal season to more

fairly balance the competing needs of

the railroad and vessel traffic. The

NPRM proposed on-signal openings

from April 15 to November 30, Monday

through Thursday, from 10 a.m. to 6

p.m., and Friday through Sunday from

6 a.m. to 11 p.m. At all other times the

bridge would only have to open for

vessel traffic after three hours advance

notice.

After publication of the proposal, we

received 652 comments from the public.

All objected to the proposed changes.

We notified NSC of the overwhelming

public opposition to our proposed

changes and asked them for additional

input in a letter dated January 22, 1999.

NSC responded in a letter dated

February 11, 1999. We facilitated a

meeting on April 20,1999, during which

NSC, local government representatives,

and other interested attendees discussed

the proposed rule and their respective

needs and concerns. Representatives

from the Norfolk Police and Fire

Departments and the Virginia Marine

Patrol voiced concerns about bridge

openings in case of emergencies.

Representatives of the Lower

Chesapeake Waterman’s Association

voiced concerns that the proposed 10

a.m. start time for on-signal openings

would interfere with commercial fishing

and crabbing enterprises which require

early morning transits. The validity of

the number of openings logged by NSC

was also questioned. All other issues

raised at the meeting relevant to this

rulemaking were the same as those

contained in the written comments to

the docket. A written summary of that

meeting is available for review in the

public docket.

In July 1999, NSC informed the Coast

Guard that the bridge had at times used

a half-cycle operation and inquired

about the possibility of incorporating

half-cycle operation as part of a revised

proposal. (A ‘‘full cycle’’ involves

changing a bridge from its current

position to the opposite position and

then returning it to the position from

which it began. In a ‘‘half-cycle’’

operation, a bridge’s position is changed

from its current position to the opposite

position and then remains there until it

is necessary to return the bridge to its

original position. That is, the bridge

goes from the closed position to the

open position or vice versa, but does not

complete the ‘‘cycle’’ to it’s original

position, hence the term ‘‘half-cycle’’

operation.) This type of operation is

permitted and offers some benefits to

both bridge operators and waterway

users. Bridge operators reduce the wear

and tear on the bridge and waterway

users enjoy increased ease of navigation

and reduced delay in transiting through

the bridge.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

We received 652 comments objecting

to the proposed rule change to reduce

the on-signal opening requirements of

the Norfolk and Western Railroad

Bridge. The vast majority of those

comments (over 630) were ‘‘form

letters,’’ signatures on a petition, and

letters that although individually

drafted contained the same or similar

language. These and other comments

opposed the proposed changes and

favored maintaining the current

regulations or slightly increasing the

hours of on-signal openings on weekend

and holiday nights. Other suggestions

included requiring the bridge to remain

in the open position unless actually

being used for train traffic, automating

the operation of the bridge, and

requiring the bridge to open on-signal at

all times.

Reasons cited in support of the above

suggestions included the effect on

property values and future

development, concern about the ability

of waterborne emergency personnel to

transit the waterway, inconvenience and

interference with the commercial

enterprise of fisherman, inconvenience

and interference with the recreational

pursuits of other waterway users, and

safety concerns of those who wished to

return to port due to deteriorating

weather conditions and who were

hampered in that endeavor by the

advance notice requirements.

The comments concerning future

development, property values, and

transit of emergency personnel were not

accompanied by any supporting data.

Having evaluated the comments, the

Coast Guard is satisfied that the existing

federal regulations found at 33 CFR

117.31 regarding operation of the draw

for emergency situations are sufficient

based on the information provided by

the emergency service agencies

involved.

The comments submitted concerning

actual usage of the waterway were

considered and balanced against the

comments made by the bridge operator.

The revelation that half-cycle operations

had been used in the past casts doubt on

the reliability of using the drawlogs as

a valid indicator of vessel traffic; it is

impossible to tell how many vessels

actually transited through the bridge

during periods when it remained in the

open to navigation position.

Based on all the information received

since the publication of the NPRM, we

are revising our original proposal which

would have reduced the hours during

the day and times of the year when onsignal openings are required. The

proposal to have months of the year

during which no on-signal opening

hours were required has been dropped.

Rather than limiting the times during

which the drawbridge will open on

signal, we propose to keep the same onsignal hours as in the current

regulations using a ‘‘half-cycle

30940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

operation’’ that will reduce the number

of openings during the on-signal hours.

Beginning at 6 a.m. when the draw first

opens for vessel passage, it will stay in

the open position, rather than

completing the draw cycle back to the

closed position. It will remain in the

open to navigation position until a train

crossing requires that it be lowered to

the closed position. It will then stay in

the closed position until a vessel

passage requires it to be opened again.

Between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. this halfcycle operation will reduce the number

of complete cycles normally caused by

vessel passages through the draw and

should effectively keep the draw in the

open to navigation position during most

of the on-signal period. This will reduce

the waiting time for vessels and reduce

the wear and tear of normal operations

on the drawbridge and will meet both

the needs of navigation and train traffic. In addition, we are reducing the

current advance notice requirement

from three hours to two hours during

the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. period. The

reduction in the amount of advance

notice required will allow waterway

users greater flexibility in planning their

transits of the bridge while not

burdening the bridge operator with

extended hours of on-signal operation

unnecessarily. It is also responsive to

the comments from vessel operators

who expressed safety concerns over

being unnecessarily delayed in

returning to their moorings, especially

under adverse weather conditions.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

Order. The Office of Management and

Budget has not reviewed it under that

Order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on

the fact that the proposed change will

not impede maritime traffic but will

actually serve to increase the ease of use

by waterway users, while still providing

for the needs of the bridge owner.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises

small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000. The

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the

following entities, some of which might

be small entities: the owners and

operators of vessels that desire to transit

the waterway and homeowners

associations representing property

owners upstream of the drawbridge.

This proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities for

the following reasons. The proposed

rule will increase the amount of time

the drawbridge is open during peak

waterway usage and decreases the

notification requirement for off-peak

opening of the drawbridge.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as small entitiy

and that his rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

qualifies and in what way and to what

degree this rule would economically

affect it.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 12612 and have determined

that this rule does not have sufficient

implications for federalism to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates and Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) and E.O.

12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, (58 FR 58093, October 28,

1993) govern the issuance of Federal

regulations that require unfunded

mandates. An unfunded mandate is a

regulation that requires a State, local, or

tribal government or the private sector

to incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

This proposed rule only deals with the

operating schedule of an existing

drawbridge and will have no impact on

the environment. A ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–4587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.1007(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 117.1007 Elizabeth River—Eastern

Branch.

(a) The draw of the Norfolk and

Western Railroad bridge, mile 2.7 in

Norfolk shall operate as follows:

(1) From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., the draw

shall open on signal if it is in the closed

to navigation position and remain open

until a train crossing requires that it be

returned to the closed to navigation

position.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30941

(2) From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw

shall open on signal if at least two hours

notice is given.

* * * * *

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Thomas E. Bernard,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–12147 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF84

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Endangered

Status for the Plants Lomatium cookii

(Cook’s lomatium) and Limnanthes

floccosa ssp. grandiflora (LargeFlowered Wooly Meadowfoam) in

Oregon

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

list two plants, Lomatium cookii (Cook’s

lomatium) and Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

grandiflora (large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam) as endangered species

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act). Both of these

plants inhabit seasonally wet habitats

known as vernal pools in the Agate

Desert, an area north of Medford

(Jackson County), Oregon. Researchers

know of only 13 occurrences of L. cookii

and 10 occurrences of L. f. ssp.

grandiflora in the Agate Desert. An

additional 10 occurrences of L. cookii

are known in French Flat, Josephine

County. The continued existence of L.

cookii and L. f. ssp. grandiflora is

threatened primarily by destruction of

their habitat by industrial and

residential development, including road

and powerline construction and

maintenance. Agricultural conversion,

certain grazing practices, off-road

vehicle use, and competition with

nonnative plants also contribute to

population declines. Lomatium cookii

sites in Josephine County are

additionally threatened by habitat

alteration associated with gold mining,

certain proposed timber projects, and

woody species encroachment resulting

from fire suppression. This proposal, if

made final, would extend the Act’s

protection to these plants.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by July 14,

2000. Public hearing requests must be

received by June 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments

and materials on this proposal in person

or by mail to: Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State

Office, 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97266. Alternatively, you may

send comments via the Internet to

loli@r1.fws.gov. For further information

please see section entitled ‘‘Public

Comments Solicited.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Jacobs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Oregon State Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 503/231–6179;

facsimile 503/231–6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands

that form only in regions where certain

soil and climatic conditions exist.

During fall and winter rains typical of

Mediterranean climates, water collects

in shallow depressions in areas where

downward percolation of water is

prevented by the presence of an

impervious hard pan or clay pan layer

below the soil surface (Keeley and

Zedler 1998). Later in the spring, when

rains decrease and the weather warms,

the water evaporates, and the pools

generally disappear by May. Vernal

pools thus provide unusual ‘‘flood and

drought’’ habitat conditions to which

certain plants and animals have

specifically adapted. Lomatium cookii

(Cook’s lomatium) and Limnanthes

floccosa ssp. grandiflora (large-flowered

wooly meadowfoam) are two such plant

taxa that occur in vernal pool habitats

in a small area of Jackson County,

southwestern Oregon. Lomatium cookii

also occurs in seasonally wet habitats at

a few locations in Josephine County, the

adjacent county to the west. The L. f.

ssp. grandiflora is believed to be extant

in only 10 locations in Jackson County,

while L. cookii is believed to occur at 13

sites in Jackson and 10 in Josephine

County (Oregon Natural Heritage

Program (ONHP) Database 1998).

Lomatium cookii is a perennial forb in

the carrot family (Apiaceae) that grows

1.5 to 5 decimeters (6 to 20 inches (in))

tall from a slender, twisted taproot.

Leaves are smooth, finely dissected, and

strictly basal (growing directly above the

taproot on the ground, not along the

stems). One to four groups of clustered,

pale-yellow flowers produce boatshaped fruits 8 to 13 millimeters (mm)

(0.3 to 0.5 in) long with thickened

margins. The taproot can often branch at

ground level to produce multiple stems.

The branching taproot distinguishes L.

cookii from L. bradshawii (indigenous to

wet prairies from southern Willamette

Valley, Oregon, to southwest

Washington) and L. humile (found in

vernal pools in northern California)

(Kagan 1986). Lomatium utriculatum,

found on mounds adjacent to pools in

the Agate Desert, is distinguished from

L. cookii by its more intense yellow

flowers, the different shape of its

involucel bracklets (leaflike structures

below the flowers), and thin-winged

fruits (Kagan 1986). Lomatium tracyi,

occurring in California and the Illinois

Valley, Oregon, has a similar

appearance to L. cookii, but L. tracyi has

slender-margined fruits and can grow on

dry sites. Lomatium cookii has boat or

pumpkin-shaped fruits and grows on

seasonally wet sites (Lincoln Constance,

Prof. Emeritus, University of California,

Berkeley, pers. comm. 1992).

James Kagan first collected Lomatium

cookii in 1981 from vernal pools in the

Agate Desert, Jackson County, Oregon,

and subsequently described the species

(Kagan 1986). Additional populations

were found at French Flat in the Illinois

Valley, Josephine County, Oregon in

1988 (ONHP Database 1998). Plants in

the French Flat populations grow on

seasonally wet soils. Slight

morphological differences exist between

L. cookii populations in the Agate Desert

and French Flat, but these differences

are not considered significant enough to

separate the species into subspecies (L.

Constance, in litt. 1992). Preliminary

genetic work has not revealed any

differences between the Agate Desert

and French Flat L. cookii populations

(Matt Gitzendanner, Washington State

University, pers. comm. February 1998).

Limnanthes floccosa spp. grandiflora

is a delicate annual in the meadowfoam,

or false mermaid, family

(Limnanthaceae). Limnanthes floccosa

ssp. grandiflora grows 5 to 15

centimeters (cm) (2 to 6 in) tall, with 5

cm (2 in) leaves divided into 5 to 9

segments. The stems and leaves are

sparsely covered with short, fuzzy hairs.

The flowers, and especially the calyx

(outer whorl of floral parts), are densely

covered with wooly hairs. Each of the 5

yellowish to white petals is relatively

long for the genus, 6 to 13 mm (0.2 to

0.5 in.), and has 2 rows of hairs near its

base.

In his monograph of the genus

Limnanthes, Mason (1952) described

three varieties of Limnanthes floccosa

but did not recognize grandiflora as

distinct. Based on her study of

specimens grown under controlled

conditions from field-collected seed,

Arroyo (1973) elevated Mason’s

varieties to subspecies and described