[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